The ceasefire between Israel and Iran seems to be holding. Other countries in the region maintain ambiguous attitudes towards the 12-day war and would prefer stability to regime change, or even picking sides.
It seems that the most dangerous phase of the current Israeli-Iranian conflict has passed. The ceasefire agreed to on Monday, under US President Donald Trump, has so far remained stable despite some ruptures. With this, Middle Eastern states are utilizing the pause to consider the conflict and its consequences.
It seems that many of the countries in the region had one objective in common with regard to the fighting between Israel and Iran: Maintaining ambiguity.
For example, Jordan expressed its condemnation of Israeli attacks on Iran along with 20 other Arab and Muslim-majority countries in a public statement. But at the same time, its air force prevented Iranian rockets and drones from flying over Jordanian airspace towards Israel. The Jordanians say they did this to protect their own citizens.
Saudi Arabia also signed this statement, but is thought to have allowed Israeli planes into its airspace to shoot down Iranian projectiles. Stefan Lukas, founder of the Germany-based consultancy, Middle East Minds, previously told DW he believes that the Saudis also shot down Iranian missiles themselves, over their country, although there have been no verified reports about this.
Both Jordan and Saudi Arabia have a complex relationship with Israel, involving public criticism but behind-the-scenes cooperation. Both also rely on military cooperation with the US for their defense and Jordan also receives financial aid from the US, to the tune of $1.45 billion (€1.25 billion) in annual bilateral foreign assistance. This makes Jordan one of the countries receiving the most in US foreign aid in the world. Ukraine, Israel and Ethiopia are other major recipients of US aid money.
Balancing relations with Iran
At the same time, though, both countries are interested in maintaining stability in their own region — and that means maintaining a balanced relationship with Iran.
That balancing act will continue to shape regional foreign policy, especially in the Gulf states, says Simon Wolfgang Fuchs, an associate professor of Islam at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The Gulf states have seen how Iran has lost its potential to threaten them as much, Fuchs told DW, as they’ve seen how Iranian proxies — including Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, and pro-Iranian militias in Iraq — have been weakened. The Syrian state under dictator Bashar Assad, which formerly supported Iran, is under new leadership and also no longer an Iranian ally.
“Against this background, naturally it seems sensible from the Gulf states’ perspective to make an approach to this weakened — but still very important actor — in the region,” Fuchs argues. “They have no interest in the regime there being weakened, let alone its overthrow and the chaos that would result. Jordan takes a similar position to that,” he explained.
In fact, some of Iran’s neighbors seem more interested in preventing the fall of the current Iranian regime.
“The question remains: Who would rule the Islamic Republic of Iran next?” Marcus Schneider, who’s based in Lebanon and heads the Friedrich Ebert Foundation’s regional project for peace and security in the Middle East, wrote for Berlin-based political magazine, International Politics and Society.
“In the country, there isn’t really any organized opposition, for understandable reasons — neither political nor armed [opposition]. In exile, there are two groups who are ready — the monarchists and the People’s Mujahedin of Iran.” But for both groups, their effectiveness and potential popularity with the Iranian public would be questionable, Schneider said.
