By Josh Phillips

Visiting PPE Student at Oriel College, Oxford

In recent months, many scholars and analysts of the Middle East have eagerly asserted that “peace is breaking out in the MENA region”. But what these observers leave out, and what is critical to developing a more complete understanding of the current Middle Eastern dynamic, is that this peace is far from indivisible. The peace that is “breaking out” is instead two distinct and parallel processes of diplomacy characterized by the diametrically opposed involvement of Israel and Iran. Israel and Iran’s mutual rivalry creates a contradiction of peace processes– the more diplomatic relations are between Iran and the Gulf States, the more threatened and less peaceful Israel will behave; and vice versa for Israel and the Arab States. Peace between some Middle Eastern nations may worsen that of others, creating a perilous dynamic that makes all-encompassing peace impossible. 

Israel’s recent wave of diplomacy has marked a notable shift in its engagement with Arab nations through the Abraham Accords. The Accords, signed in 2020, established diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab states, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. These agreements marked a significant departure from the traditional approach of diplomatically isolating Israel within the region. This normalization of Israeli-Arab relations, while significant in the easing of tensions in the region, also threatened Iran with diplomatic isolation and a precarious security situation as it faced encirclement. Thus, this wave of diplomacy motivated Iran to seek diplomatic relations of its own.

Over the past few years, Iran has been engaged in a series of diplomatic movements, characterized by a combination of assertiveness and pragmatism. To reverse being geographically surrounded by unfriendly nations, Iran has sought closer ties with and within countries like Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen, backing Shi’a militias and providing support to allied political groups. Iran and Saudi Arabia recently made an announcement that they were re-establishing ties, marking the easing of four decades of tensions between the regional rivals and a loss for Israel.

In this way, two parallel pursuits of diplomacy have been taking place, with only a few overlaps of shared partners in peace. The distinction between regional factions is dangerous, because meaningful change and a true regional reset will be impossible without an appreciation of the entrenched mistrust that has built up during the past decade of regional competition. Polarity leads to rivalry, and the existence of two distinct Middle Eastern diplomatic relational groups leads to the Iranian-Israeli feud being an inevitable impediment to peace. The dual webs of diplomacy that have been spreading across the Middle East have a missing link in the form of Israel and Iran’s lack of mutual relations, making the peace that is allegedly spreading polarized and fragile. 

In a May 2023 paper, the Middle East Institute in Washington, D.C. identified Iran and Israel as the likeliest escalation factors in the broader Middle East. A few weeks ago, during an interview with Sky News, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu reserved Israel’s right to act unilaterally “to do whatever it needs to do to defend ourselves against Iran”. There remains a significant risk of an Israeli-Iranian conflict and a subsequent region-wide war, triggered by the unresolved trajectory of Iran’s nuclear program and the polarized parallel diplomatic ties that split the region. As more and more Arab countries establish normalized relations with Israel, questions are raised about whether steps need to be taken to mitigate Israel-Iran hostility to make these parallel processes of peace compatible.

A huge obstacle preventing diplomacy is Israel’s unwavering desire to be the dominant nuclear power in the Middle East. Israel’s goal has long been to thwart Iran’s nuclear advances to ensure Israel’s military superiority in the region, and it perceives Iran’s developing nuclear program as an aggressive military threat. In order for any sort of reconciliation to occur, it is likely that Israel would seek assurances that Iran would not develop nuclear weapons. This possibility is made more likely by the power that the Israeli Security Apparatus, which is dedicated to maintaining Israeli nuclear superiority, holds in the Israeli government.

On the other hand, a notable development that could soften Iran’s outlook of Israel would be more Arabs’ acceptance of the state of Israel and normalization of relations with it. While informal channels of communication most likely exist between the two nations, given the firmly hostile official rhetoric and tensions, they must not be important enough to significantly affect policy in a meaningful way. Thus, to balance burgeoning Arab-Israel relations, Iran could feel compelled at some point to start its own official dialogue with Israel. 

The emerging U.S./Saudi/Israeli deal could play a role in influencing Iran towards starting a dialogue. Despite the recent election of the most right-wing government in Israel’s history, Prime Minister Netanyahu has indicated that Israel would be willing to make concessions to Palestinians in order to achieve Israeli-Saudi diplomatic normalizations. While a concrete framework for the deal has yet to be put in place, Netanyahu’s willingness to recognize Saudi Arabia’s desires for Palestinian justice is encouraging for Arab-Israeli normalization with other nations – namely, Iran.

While a positive outcome to current Israeli-Iranian hostility is unlikely in the near future, peace will also not simply “break out”. If the Middle East is to reconcile into a period of lasting change, a constructive discourse between Israel and Iran must be opened. What is most important to know is that until the barriers of dichotomous regional and ideological rivalry are surpassed, most specifically between Israel and Iran, lasting stability cannot be achieved in the Middle East.