WHO hails Iran’s mental health strategy as an “innovative and replicable global model”

TEHRAN – The World Health Organization has praised Iran’s SERAJ – a pioneering model for integrated mental health and social care, describing it as an “innovative and replicable global model.”

A WHO delegation paid a visit to mental health care systems across the country from November 8 to 12, 2025, hailing the Iranian mental health care as a global model and a blueprint for other nations grappling with rising mental health needs and limited resources.

In a south Tehran neighborhood, a quiet transformation in mental health care is unfolding. Inside the Shahid Mohammad Ali Ghofrani Centre, psychiatrists, physicians, psychologists, dedicated social workers, and community volunteers work side-by-side, offering everything from psychotherapy and addiction counselling to parenting workshops and job placement assistance, WHO website announced in a press release on February 23.

The SERAJ approach: a three-tier lifeline

At the heart of the country’s mental health strategy is the SERAJ programme – a structured three-tier service-delivery framework that integrates primary care, specialized outpatient clinics and community-based social action.
Tier 1: Frontline detection
A nationwide network of approximately 5750 comprehensive health service centres, with around 3400 psychologists, serves as the first point of contact. Trained community health workers use standardized tools to screen for mental health issues, substance use and social risks. Individuals are then referred, as needed, to on-site psychologists or general practitioners for initial care.

Tier 2: Specialized support
More complex cases – such as severe psychiatric disorders, post-discharge patients, or suicide attempts – are referred to 104 specialized SERAJ centres. Each center is staffed by a multidisciplinary team, including a psychiatrist, a physician, a psychologist and a dedicated social worker who acts as a case manager.

Tier 3: Community action
Beyond clinical care, SERAJ centres actively engage local authorities, public agencies, charities and volunteers to tackle social determinants such as housing, employment and social inclusion. This ensures that interventions are delivered seamlessly across the health and social care systems.

“We don’t just treat symptoms – we enable individuals to contribute towards their community’s development,” explained a psychologist at the Mehrgan Centre in District 17 of Tehran, where the WHO team observed a group therapy session. “If someone is depressed, we ask: Do they have a job? A home? Family support? Without addressing these, medication alone is not enough.”

Based on programme monitoring and evaluation data, among participants of the programme there has been:

*A 69% reduction in psychiatric hospital readmissions
*An 80% drop in suicidal behaviors
*An 83% decrease in severe marital conflicts reported.
“This is community-based resilience in action,” said Dr Khalid Saeed, WHO Regional Advisor for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, who led the mission. “Iran has moved beyond a medicalized approach to one that embraces social determinants of health. This is exactly what the global mental health movement advocates.”

Beyond harm reduction: building hope and recovery

At the Vali-e-Asr drop-in center in Tehran’s Yaft-Abad neighborhood, harm reduction is not a slogan – it’s a daily practice. Here, people who use drugs can access sterile syringes, methadone maintenance therapy, HIV testing, tuberculosis screening and psychological counselling – all under one roof.

“We meet people where they are,” said the center’s director, showing the delegation their hot meal service and shower facilities. “Dignity comes first. Recovery comes after.”

But meeting people where they are is more than a philosophy – it’s a systematic strategy. The country’s harm reduction programme employs a rigorous “mapping of high-risk populations” at two levels:

Operationally, teams continuously identify and update consumption “hotspots” to plan targeted outreach visits;
Strategically, GIS technology is used at city, regional and national levels to estimate population sizes, visualize distribution patterns and determine the optimal service delivery model – whether through drop-in centres, mobile units, or outreach teams.

This data-driven, geographically precise approach ensures that despite resource constraints, services reach those most in need, when and where they need them.

While SERAJ addresses common mental health conditions, a parallel system has been established to tackle substance use disorders. The national substance use response is notable for its multisectoral coordination, with the Ministry of Interior working closely with health authorities on prevention, treatment and social reintegration. Currently, some 2 million people are in treatment for substance use disorders nationwide, supported by over 10 000 government-run centres.

The research engine: data, foresight and innovation

In Kerman, the delegation visited the Institute for Futures Studies in Health (IFSH), a WHO Collaborating Centre that functions as the country’s health foresight and innovation hub. Researchers there are studying everything from smartphone addiction among students to the mental health of refugees and migrants.

“We’re not just looking at today’s problems – we’re anticipating tomorrow’s,” said the Institute’s director. IFSH leads national missions on health informatics, statistical modelling and future studies, ensuring that the country’s policies are evidence-based and forward-looking.

Meanwhile, at the Iran Psychiatric Hospital in Tehran, specialized units for addiction and psychosocial rehabilitation are training the next generation of psychiatrists. While the SERAJ model was originally conceptualized and piloted at Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS), affiliated research centres here, such as ReCARB and the Mental Health Research Center (MHRC), under Iran University of Medical Sciences, have played a vital role in researching, evaluating and helping to scale up the model nationwide.

Crisis ready: when disaster strikes

The Iranian mental health system has been tested repeatedly – by earthquakes, floods, pandemics and conflict. Each time, the mental health and psychosocial support system activates.

In the aftermath of the 2003 Bam earthquake, the country developed one of the Region’s first organized psychosocial response protocols. Today, a network of over 500 mobile mental health teams and a national psychological support hotline (4030) stand ready.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, SERAJ centres pivoted to tele-counselling and community needs assessments.

“This system doesn’t just wait for emergencies – it anticipates them,” observed Dr Anja Busse of WHO headquarters. “That’s a level of preparedness many countries still lack.”

The road ahead: challenges and champions

Despite its successes, the Iranian mental health system faces real hurdles. Sanctions continue to limit access to essential psychotropic medicines. Data systems need strengthening. Stigma persists.

To address this situation, the WHO mission identified a clear path forward:

Regional leadership: with six decades of experience, the Islamic Republic of Iran is poised to become a regional training hub, offering fellowships and technical support to neighboring countries.

Digital innovation: plans are underway to develop home-grown digital tools for self-care and to address emerging issues like gaming addiction.

Global collaboration: the country has proposed joint research platforms with WHO on stimulant use, maternal mental health and AI-assisted therapy.

A message to the world

As the mission concluded, a clear consensus emerged: the country’s integrated, community-based model offers a powerful alternative to hospital-centric mental health care.

“What we’ve seen here is a system that treats the person, not just the illness,” summarized Dr Fahmy Hanna, a WHO technical specialist. “It’s humane, it’s practical and it works.

In a world where mental health needs are rising, Iran’s experience is not just relevant – it’s essential learning.”

WHO and the Islamic Republic of Iran are now establishing a technical working group to scale up this model and share its lessons globally. For the millions living with mental health conditions worldwide, the Iranian story is more than a case study – it’s a beacon of what’s possible when care is built around community, compassion and continuity.

Tags

• Iran
 
• World Health Organization (WHO)
 
• mental health

Why this non-Muslim supports the Islamic Republic of Iran

Tim Anderson 

Source: Al Mayadeen English

Tim Anderson argues that, despite opposing religious states, solidarity is due with Iran on the grounds of self-determination, social development gains, and resistance to Western imperialism.

As a non-Muslim and, in general, an opponent of religious states, I firmly support the Islamic Republic of Iran. Let me explain.

The FIRST and most obvious reason to support Iran is that solidarity is due to any independent people under attack by the imperial power. That much, most people understand. Imperialism has always been the great social evil.

SECOND, and fundamental to the first, since the Iranian people chose a revolutionary path based on Islamic principles, we should respect their right to self-determination, whether or not that is a path we would have chosen for ourselves. The right of a people to self-determination is the key human right, before all others, placed in international human rights law (the ICCPR and the ICESCR) by the former colonial states, with grudging acceptance from the former colonial powers.

It is plain from the recent huge rallies in Iran (January 12, 2026 and February 2026) and surveys - the UNDP reported in 2018 that 71% of Iranians trust their national government (almost double the figure for the USA), while University of Maryland polls in 2019 showed 82% support for murdered Iranian anti-terrorist commander Qassem Soleimani and strong majority support for other political leaders - that the great bulk of the Iranian people in Iran support their nation, especially in face of the new waves of US and Israeli aggression.

The Iranian revolution of 1979 expelled the US-backed dictatorship (of the “Shah” or “Emperor” Mohammad Reza Pahlavi) installed by the Anglo-Americans after they overthrew an elected social democratic government in 1953.  After decades of political repression, resistance to this despised regime came to be organised mainly through the mosques. As a result, contemporary Iranian self-determination has been attached to Islamic Shia values which stress the need for sacrifice in opposing unjust regimes and tyrants.

Well before I came into contact with the Arab and Muslim world, I had developed my own spiritual understandings and moral reasoning from other cultures (mostly from India and Latin America). I am not at all closed to learning from other cultures, but similarly not open to adopting a new religion; indeed my spiritual path turned me away from many common elements of organised religion. While respecting the Shia tradition of sacrifice and resistance, and conscious of the tremendous examples of Shia leaders like Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and Haj Qassem Soleimani, tremendous ambassadors for their nations and their religions, I maintain a deep conviction that no culture has a monopoly on decent human values. Indeed, I was struck by the common features I saw in indigenous communities of the Pacific Islands and in those of the Arab world. That helped convince me that many traditional and decent human values (e.g. hospitality, reciprocity and inclusivity) developed independently in many parts of the world.

The lessons I learned from Islamic scholars in Syria reinforced this view. Seeing that Quranic scholar Muhammad Said Ramadan Al-Bouti was murdered by Western backed Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists in his Damascus mosque, along with 40 of his followers, taught me the great difference between conservative Sunni Muslim scholars and extremists. And on hearing that I was publishing a book on the resistance (Axis of Resistance, 2019), Syria’s former Grand Mufti Sheikh Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun was quick to tell me that resistance (to Imperialism and Zionism) should never be the property of any particular religion; further, that no state should be based on any particular religion. Even though pluralist Syria (when Assad was president) was closely allied to both Hezbollah and Iran, I appreciated his point.

THIRD, the Islamic Republic of Iran has, for the most part, done the right thing by its people. This is not just a matter of opinion. UNDP reports from 1999 and 2018 show that, between 1990 and 2017, Iran was second only to the People’s Republic of China in making outstanding advances in its Human Development Index. Iran’s HDI grew on average 1.21% per year over those 27 years, mainly due to improvements in mass education and maternal and child health. I discussed this in my 2019 book Axis of Resistance (Chapter 14).

Contrary to much of Western propaganda, average living conditions in Iran were very poor in the pre-revolution period. Yet between 1980 and 2017, average life expectancy in Iran rose from 54.1 to 76.2 years. Average years of schooling more than quadrupled, from 2.2 to 9.8 years. According to a 2022 report by the Washington-based World Bank, the expected years of schooling for children in Iran by 2020 was 11.9 years for boys and 11.8 years for girls. Those tremendous advances in education and health laid the basis for the technical and industrial development pursued by successive Iranian governments, away from a simple dependence on energy reserves, which characterises many oil rich countries.

FOURTH, the Islamic Republic of Iran has provided tremendous support to the Palestinian and other independent peoples of the West Asian region, besieged and attacked as they are by imperial powers and the Zionist enemy. No other state or entity has provided the means for these people to defend themselves. Since 1979, Iran’s support for the Palestinian people and their various Resistance groups - falsely derided as “terrorist” by imperial regimes - has been consistent and strong. This support includes cultural events such as International Quds Day, at the end of Ramadan, to remind Muslims to support the oppressed people of Palestine. Indeed, Iran’s firm support for Palestine is the main reason why the nation has been targeted by the Israelis, Washington and their hangers-on. In response to this, Iran has tried to build regional cooperation and regional resistance to foreign occupation.

A Palestinian academic colleague resident in Iran has taken regular measure of Iranian public support for the government’s backing of the Palestinian resistance; he says that support increased after Trump’s January 2020 murder of Qassem Soleimani and again after the Israeli attacks on Iran in June 2025.

In recent years, Washington has tried to roll the clock back, through hybrid wars consisting of incessant propaganda, direct attacks, economic siege, and contracted terrorism. Some of that propaganda has successfully fooled Western populations into supporting yet another “color revolution”, even though it is obviously orchestrated by Washington and the Israelis.

Much of the propaganda has been anti-Islamic, such as the depiction of Iran as anti-woman, through enforcement of the hijab or head scarf dress code for women. I have to admit I am also against a state imposed dress code aimed at women. However, the Western campaign has been dishonest and ignores the reality of women in Iran.

First of all, hijab or modesty is a religious requirement (not the same as a state mandate). Second, the massive Western campaign claiming that in 2022 Iranian police beat to death a young woman - Mahsa Amini - for improper head scarf was completely false and contrary to the public evidence of CCTV and a coroner’s report. Third, while it is true that many young Iranian women do not like the head scarf rule, they have also subverted it, so that the practice in most Iranian cities is that many Muslim women just wear a loose scarf over their shoulders, raising it when they pass a shrine or a mosque. As a result of this practice, Iranian women have probably the most relaxed hijab custom in the Muslim world.

Finally, while Iran’s leader Seyyed Ali Khamenei strongly supports the hijab as a religious requirement, he has also called for tolerance and respect for women with “inadequate hijab”, saying that “those who do not fully observe the hijab should not be accused of being irreligious or against the Revolution … why do you accuse such people? … [who] are covered in different ways … and are shedding tears [at religious and national events] … they are our own children, they are our daughters.”

Nevertheless, it is difficult for any non-Muslim to accept the principle of religious guardianship (Velayat-e Faqih in Iran), which is the foundation of Iran’s hybrid democratic system. Indeed, there are even some important Shia leaders who opposed this doctrine, such as the late Lebanese Marja Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah. Yet as I said above, religious guardianship is not my choice, it is that of the people of Iran. Further, we can often see greater democratic processes at work in Iran than in the Anglo-American world, which is mostly subject to oligarchic rule.

As an independent observer I have to recognise that the Islamic led Iranian Revolution kicked out a foreign power, then the Islamic Republic invested in its people, making massive advances in the health and education of its boys and girls, building a strong and resilient nation and playing the most important regional role in supporting the Palestinian people and the other independent peoples of the region.

Iran’s consistent firm adherence to principle is not a coincidence but rather a result of its strong and mature leadership since the revolution. For the most part, it has been the liberal wing of Iranian politics that has, at times, weakened the nation, in a fruitless pursuit of some crumbs for ingratiating themselves with Western elites. Without Iran’s principled leadership, there would have been greater concessions to that voracious monster that is Anglo-American imperialism and its bastard Zionist child.

From “life or death over Yemen” to the Iran question: When American threats fail to deliver

 By Sondoss Al Asaad 

SOUTH LEBANON — The dramatic account published in the American Air & Space Forces Magazine about two F-16 pilots narrowly escaping surface-to-air missiles over Yemen was intended as a story of heroism.

Instead, it inadvertently exposed a deeper strategic reality: the limits of American air power when confronted with determined, adaptive, and locally embedded resistance forces. 

Operation “Rough Rider,” a 52-day air campaign overseen by United States Central Command and unusually delegated to Joint Special Operations Command, was designed to break Yemeni missile and air defence capabilities. 

It involved B-2 bombers, aircraft carriers like the USS Harry S. Truman, MQ-9 drones, and elite “Wild Weasel” F-16 squadrons specialized in suppressing enemy air defences. 

Yet despite this overwhelming technological superiority, the operation revealed a sobering truth: Yemen’s air defences were neither blind nor broken.

According to the pilots’ own testimonies, Yemeni forces executed what they described as a “SAMbush” — waiting until American aircraft were exiting Yemeni airspace before activating radars and launching surface-to-air missiles. 

The result was seconds separating advanced U.S. fighter jets from destruction. More striking was the admission by U.S. officials that Washington never fully understood the integrated nature of Yemen’s air defence network.

Combining radar-guided systems with visual observers and electro-optical tracking, Yemeni forces created a hybrid model that neutralized key advantages of stealth and electronic warfare.

This is not the profile of a force collapsing under pressure. It is the profile of an adversary learning, adapting, and surviving under bombardment. 
American mainstream media, including The New York Times, previously reported that Yemeni air defences nearly struck multiple U.S. F-16 and F-35 aircraft. 

More revealing still were acknowledgments that seven MQ-9 drones were shot down in the first month alone. The campaign reportedly drained advanced munitions stockpiles and raised concerns inside the Pentagon about readiness for a potential confrontation with China. 

After roughly two months, Washington halted operations without achieving decisive results — no air superiority, no dismantled defence grid, no political capitulation from Sana’a. 

Even internal U.S. debates reflected frustration. Then-President Donald Trump reportedly demanded rapid results, only to be confronted with military stalemate and mounting costs.

Discussions of declaring symbolic victory contrasted sharply with the continued launch of missiles and drones from Yemen. 

If such an extensive campaign — involving stealth bombers, carrier strike groups, and advanced suppression tactics — failed to impose dominance over Yemen: what realistic expectations can be projected onto a far more capable and regionally entrenched power like Iran?
Iran possesses layered air defences, advanced missile capabilities, strategic depth, and a far larger industrial base than Yemen. 

Iran has decades of experience countering sanctions, cyber operations, covert action, and asymmetric warfare. 

More importantly, Iran is not isolated geographically like Yemen. Any large-scale confrontation would risk regional escalation involving multiple fronts across West Asia. 

The logistical and political cost would dwarf the Yemeni campaign!

American deterrence often relies on psychological projection — the assumption that overwhelming firepower will compel rapid submission. Yet Yemen demonstrated that technological superiority does not automatically translate into strategic success. 

Air hostilities can punish, degrade, and disrupt — but they do not necessarily break ideological resolve or decentralized military networks. 
From Iraq to Afghanistan, and from Lebanon to Yemen, a consistent pattern emerges: initial shock-and-awe operations give way to prolonged engagements with diminishing returns.

Tactical bravery does not equate to strategic victory. The Yemen experience should serve as a cautionary tale.

When even a relatively modest actor withstands sustained air assault and adapts effectively, the assumption that threats alone can bend stronger regional powers becomes questionable.

If the empire of paedophiles and cannibals could not secure uncontested skies over Yemen after weeks of concentrated strikes, the prospect of coercing Iran through intimidation appears even more uncertain. 

History suggests that wars are not won by headlines of narrow escapes, but by sustainable strategic outcomes.

In Yemen, the outcome was not decisive dominance — it was a costly stalemate. And that reality inevitably reshapes the credibility of future American uncalculated threats!

Tags

• Yemen
 
• Iran
 
• U.S.

How is Israel confronting global isolation?

 By Wesam Bahrani 

TEHRAN – Despite deep internal political divisions, there is broad agreement within the Israeli regime on one issue: it is facing unprecedented global hostility. 

This backlash is no longer limited to Asia or Africa but has spread across Western societies, including the United States, particularly among younger generations, student movements, and civil society groups.

Among political leaders, government officials, and major media figures aligned with the Zionist regime, the prevailing explanation is that the surge in condemnation intensified after the genocidal war on Gaza and stems largely from a failure in public diplomacy. They argue that the Zionist regime lost control of the narrative, while the Palestinian account proved more effective in shaping international public opinion. 

From their perspective, the central problem is not policy but messaging; an inability to convince global audiences of the regime’s military actions.

Critics strongly reject this explanation, saying it deliberately avoids confronting the scale of destruction and civilian suffering in Gaza. They argue that widespread outrage is not mainly the result of weak communication, but of the human toll and the graphic realities broadcast to the world in real time. 

Global anger has been shaped less by competing narratives and more by images of devastation, displacement, mounting casualties and starving Palestinian children. 

As international criticism grew, the Zionist regime reportedly launched internal reviews to assess the risks of diplomatic isolation, economic consequences, and reputational decline. These reviews focused heavily on communication failures, particularly the mistake of treating global public opinion as a secondary issue rather than a significant strategic threat. 

During the Gaza genocide, the regime invested heavily in military and security readiness while placing less emphasis on influencing international awareness and debate.

Some occupation regime officials now describe global public opinion as an existential battlefield, one that must be addressed with the same seriousness as military challenges. 

The wave of protests that erupted in Western capitals and on university campuses after October 7, 2023, reinforced the belief that the Zionist regime had been unprepared for a global narrative challenge. Demonstrations, boycott campaigns, and growing cultural backlash were seen as signs of a deepening legitimacy crisis.

As a result, influential figures within the regime have worked on a structured and well-funded international campaign to strengthen its narrative. Proposals reportedly include organizing non-Jewish Zionist allies, Christian Zionist leaders, media personalities, academics, think tanks, and social media influencers to counter the regime’s growing global isolation. 

The focus is on long-term coordination, strategic communication, and dedicating substantial financial resources to this effort, in particular on social media platforms. 

This strategy aims to present the Israeli regime as a defender of Western ‘democratic’ values against extremism and to portray its confrontation as part of a broader ideological struggle that extends beyond West Asia. 

By situating its actions within a broader civilizational narrative, the occupation regime aims to secure Western support for expanding regional aggression while diminishing the influence of Palestinian advocacy on global opinion.

Palestinian advocates, however, frame the situation as a struggle against occupation, discrimination, forced displacement, and systemic inequality. They position their cause within global movements for self-determination, human rights, and anti-colonial resistance, arguing that growing international solidarity reflects moral outrage rather than superior messaging.

Ultimately, the battle over global perception has become central to the conflict. Yet critics maintain that no public relations strategy, however organized or well-funded, can offset the impact of prolonged violence and images that have shaped global opinion for more than two years. 

The crisis facing the Zionist regime is not simply about communication failures, but about deeper political realities that cannot be resolved through messaging campaigns alone.

Tags

• Israel
 
• Isolation
 
• Benjamin Netanyahu

Toward a self-managed Middle East: Arab–Iran engagement and the limits of external power

Leila Nezirevic 

Source: Al Mayadeen English

Amid fears of wider war and shifting global influence, Arab states are repositioning their approach to Tehran — signaling a move toward regional power management that reduces reliance on Washington and prioritizes stability through dialogue.

Across the Arab world, a significant shift in diplomatic calculus is quietly reshaping regional politics. For years, Arab states navigated their security and foreign policy in a context heavily influenced by external powers and entrenched rivalries. But today, a growing number of governments are reassessing how they relate to Tehran — not as an obstacle to be managed from a distance, but as a key participant in the Middle East’s evolving security architecture.

This is not a sudden friendship or ideological convergence. It is a calculated move toward self-reliance: a recognition that long-term stability depends on engaging Tehran as a partner in regional management rather than treating it solely as a rival. 

In a landscape marked by the risk of wider conflict and the limits of external influence, Arab governments are increasingly taking responsibility for shaping their own security environment.

Several factors are driving this shift. The risks of escalation — from Yemen to Gaza and beyond — have made confrontation a dangerous and unpredictable strategy. Simultaneously, regional actors are reassessing the reliability of external powers in guaranteeing security. Shifting global influence, including the rise of non-Western powers and the relative retrenchment of traditional patrons, has created openings for more autonomous decision-making.

The emerging pattern is pragmatic and incremental rather than dramatic. Engagement with Iran is being pursued not as an ideological endorsement but as a strategic tool: a way to mitigate conflict, stabilize borders, and assert regional agency. From Riyadh to Abu Dhabi, Arab capitals are quietly signaling that managing the Middle East’s balance of power is increasingly a task to be handled from within, rather than imposed from without. 

A war that no one wants

Recent weeks have seen renewed speculation about possible US military action against Iran. Yet behind the rhetoric, regional actors are wary.

Paul Rogers, the UK’s leading global security expert and emeritus professor of peace studies at Bradford University, describes the moment as precarious but uncertain.

“We're in really something of a tipping point,” he tells Al Mayadeen English, noting that while there are forces in Washington advocating action, “the Americans, I think, are being cautious.”

Rogers points to competing currents inside the US administration. “Certainly some people within the Trump administration, and certainly within the Pentagon, would like to see some sort of action against Iran,” he explains. But he also emphasizes that there are voices warning “against the dangers of going to war with Iran at the present time.”

For Arab governments, the issue is not abstract. They do not believe any new conflict would remain limited.

Mouin Rabbani, senior fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, is blunt about the calculations underway in Gulf capitals. These states, he argues, “do not believe that the U.S. or Israel have credible plans for a short, sharp war, that will enhance rather than destroy regional stability, and that the likelihood of the war spreading to their own territory damaging their own economy… is very high.”

This fear of uncontrollable escalation is central. Unlike previous decades when external powers could stage limited interventions, today’s regional security environment is deeply interconnected. Energy infrastructure, shipping lanes, financial hubs, and expatriate populations all sit within reach of rapid retaliation.

Rogers underlines how quickly events could spiral. Even limited exchanges, he warns, could produce dramatic economic consequences, particularly if energy flows are disrupted.

Speaking with Al Mayadeen English, he notes that “there's no doubt at all that oil and gas supplies would surge in price,” especially if tensions affected the Strait of Hormuz.

The Gulf states understand that their own prosperity — and domestic stability — depends on preventing precisely such scenarios.

From rivalry to risk management

The current engagement trend should not be mischaracterized as an overnight transformation. As Rabbani cautions, it is simplistic to describe Arab states and Iran as “historically rivals” in absolute terms.

“Iran had very close relations with a number of the Gulf States" in the past, he said. 

What we are witnessing now, he suggests, is less a dramatic reconciliation than a reversion to pragmatic diplomacy shaped by present realities.

Those realities include war fatigue, economic diversification agendas, and a desire for sovereign regional decision-making.

Rabbani emphasizes that Gulf states aligned with Washington are actively “counseling Washington against either launching a new war against Iran, or supporting a new Israeli war against Iran.”

This is not a shift driven by ideological sympathy. It is grounded in national interest. “They don't want any single power to be hegemonic in the Middle East,” Rabbani explains, “whether it's Israel or Turkey or Iran or anyone else.”

Saudi Arabia’s recalibration illustrates the logic. The Chinese-mediated normalization agreement between Riyadh and Tehran signaled that Gulf leaders are willing to pursue dialogue independent of traditional Western brokerage. The move was not anti-Western, but it was undeniably autonomous.

Rogers sees structural changes reinforcing this trend. “The relative significance of the United States is falling,” he observes. While Washington retains immense military power, its economic leverage and political authority are increasingly contested.

Many in the region, Rogers says, are beginning to look beyond an exclusively Atlantic framework. There is “a sense that the United States is, to put it bluntly, not all that it is cracked up to be, except in the area of military power.”

For Arab states, this translates into diversification: stronger ties with China, pragmatic engagement with Russia, and renewed dialogue with Iran.

Gaza’s catalytic effect

If there is one immediate catalyst accelerating Arab-Iran engagement, it is the ongoing devastation in Gaza. Rogers argues that “the impact of Gaza, the huge loss of life, and the concern among many ordinary people in the Arab-speaking world at what is happening” has reshaped regional dynamics. 

The crisis has complicated normalization processes and heightened public scrutiny of governments’ foreign alignments. Arab leaders must now navigate a political landscape in which public opinion is far more sensitive to perceived regional injustices. Engagement with Iran, in this context, becomes part of a broader recalibration of regional posture.

Rabbani frames it in strategic terms: Gulf states increasingly oppose the emergence of any hegemonic order. The war on Gaza has reinforced their concerns about long-term regional dominance by any single actor. The result is not an alliance system but a balancing strategy — one that includes Tehran.

Sanctions, resilience, and regional architecture

Another under-examined dimension of this shift concerns Iran’s domestic evolution under decades of sanctions. Rabbani offers a nuanced assessment: sanctions have “clearly constrained Iran in important respects,” particularly economically. Yet they have also “compelled Iran to invest heavily in domestic production, domestic military industry, and domestic technology.”

The contrast with some oil-rich neighbors is striking. “Saudi Arabia, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't even produce bullets of its own,” Rabbani says, whereas “Iran is on the verge of completing intercontinental ballistic missiles, and the Iranian scientific technological community is really light years ahead of that of its neighbors.”

For Arab states seeking long-term stability, this reality shapes strategic calculations. Iran is not a transient actor nor one easily isolated from regional equations. It is a deeply rooted power with indigenous capabilities and extensive regional networks. The emerging logic, therefore, is integration rather than exclusion.

Rabbani believes a regionally led security architecture that includes Iran is not only possible but already taking shape. “We've already begun to see the outlines of that,” he says, pointing to normalization processes and mutual commitments to non-interference.

He suggests that Tehran is “increasingly adopting a posture” that limits direct involvement in certain domestic arenas, while Gulf states are becoming “increasingly less inclined to want to meddle in internal Iranian affairs.” Such reciprocal restraint could form the foundation of a new regional order — one built not on alliances against a common enemy, but on mutual recognition of sovereignty.

Beyond Washington’s shadow

Are we entering a post-US Middle East?

Rabbani resists simplistic narratives. The United States remains deeply engaged militarily. Yet engagement is not the same as uncontested leadership. The lesson many regional capitals draw from recent years is not necessarily that Washington is disappearing, but that it may not always prioritize their security in a crisis.

The attacks on key Saudi energy infrastructure in 2019 left lasting impressions. So too did the limits of US responses to cross-border threats. As Rabbani puts it, there is a belief that in the event of a wider war, “the U.S. is not going to prioritize the defense of its Arab allies.” This perception — whether entirely accurate or not — encourages regional self-reliance.

Rogers adds another dimension often overlooked in geopolitical analysis: climate change. “We're now in the early stages of potentially very dangerous climate change,” he warns, arguing that environmental pressures will shape Middle East stability over the next decade.

Water scarcity, heat extremes, and economic strain demand cooperative frameworks. Rivalries consume resources; coordination preserves them. In this context, engagement with Iran is not merely diplomatic theater — it is a strategic necessity.

A fragile but consequential opening

None of this guarantees permanence. Rogers cautions that much depends on internal political dynamics across the region. The Middle East remains fluid, with multiple “imponderables". Yet even cautious analysts acknowledge that improved Saudi-Iranian relations, if sustained, would be “good news for the region.”

The broader shift is not about affection or alignment. It is about risk management in a volatile environment. Arab governments increasingly judge that confrontation with Iran would endanger their economic ambitions, destabilize domestic politics, and entangle them in conflicts not of their making. Engagement, by contrast, offers space for de-escalation in Yemen, for diplomatic maneuvering in Syria and Iraq, and for a more balanced regional security architecture.

The transformation underway is subtle. There are no grand summits proclaiming a new order. Instead, there are reopened embassies, quiet security dialogues, economic discussions, and shared caution about external escalation.

For decades, Middle East geopolitics was defined by binary alignments: pro- or anti-Iran, pro- or anti-West. That binary is eroding. In its place emerges a more multipolar regional logic — one in which Arab states seek to manage their own political and security relations without exclusive reliance on external patrons.

Whether this trajectory deepens or falters will depend on events in Gaza, Washington’s next moves, and internal political balances across the region. But for now, the trend is unmistakable: engagement with Tehran is no longer taboo in Arab capitals. It is a strategy.

In a region long shaped by confrontation, that alone marks a profound shift.

Leila Nezirevic

A London-based journalist and documentary filmmaker with extensive experience in reporting for major media outlets, with her work being published by leading networks worldwide.

The West: From Exploitation of Nations to Pedophilia and Racism

The West not only exploits the peoples of the world but also extends this exploitation to the most vulnerable – young children, especially girls, turning them into sex slaves and objects for the satisfaction of base desires.

Simon Westwood

The Origins of Hypocrisy: The American “Struggle for Independence”

Since the exploitative American War of Independence in the eighteenth century, the American leaders have been trumpeting themselves as the champions of human rights, equality, freedom, and liberty. However, the struggle for independence was a folly. The thirteen American colonies comprised illegal European settlers who mercilessly slaughtered the indigenous American people and started calling them as Red Indians. This carnage continued till the majority turned into a minority, and the immigrant European ‘White Race’ fundamentally replaced the indigenous people. The carnage was so brutal that the indigenous people of America retreated towards America’s West. Then the campaign known as “Wild Wild West” began, and the target was the remaining Red Indians to be eliminated. The European settlers sexually exploited the African slaves and laid down the foundations of modern paedophile in the West. The Hollywood movie Django Unchained (2012) depicted some of the sexual atrocities committed by the European settlers against the African people.

The valiant Soviet nation triumphed over Nazi racist ideology, liberating Europe and ending World War II, and with it, racist dreams of white supremacy

The racist nature of America reached its climax with the initiation of the American Civil War in 1861. That was the time when the fake narratives of human rights, equality, freedom, and liberty were made limited only to the White Race. The American Civil War was not civil, as it was truly barbaric and was driven by the narrative of White Supremacy. During the war, both the United States of America as well as the Confederate States of America used the African slaves as foot soldiers and sent them to the frontlines to human wave attacks, i.e., meat grinder.

Colonization of Africa and the slave trade

It is amazing that the racist traders of Europe and America colonised the African continent and enslaved the African people using brute force. As always, business and trade remain the pedigree of the European and American traders, and they started the good old business of the slave trade. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of African men, women, and children were enslaved and sold in the European and American markets for forced labour. These people were subjected to the unprecedented harsh treatment and worst possible violence. The American Civil War was based on the question of whether the African slaves were humans or subhumans.

Ku Klux Klan and the Renewed Racism

It is quite interesting that at the end of the American Civil War, the Confederate States of America and the Confederate Army were defeated; nonetheless, the Confederate soldiers were not ready to give up on slavery. On December 24, 1865, Confederate Army General Nathan Bedford Forrest laid down the foundations of the far-right hate organization known as the Ku Klux Klan, or KKK. It was noted that the KKK was “a secret society that terrorized Black Americans and opposed Reconstruction efforts.” With him there were six other officers, including Frank McCord, Richard Reed, John Lester, John Kennedy, J. Calvin Jones, and James Crowe.

The KKK justified the rape, murder, lynching, robbery, and abduction of the African people and all others who were deemed a threat to the Protestant sect of Christianity. The KKK also called for extreme segregation between the White Race and others. They also forbade interracial marriages and advocated for the supremacy and superiority of the White Race.

During the twentieth century, Nazism in Germany behaved as the new face of White Supremacy and as the extended version of the KKK. Nazi Germany attacked other races and aimed to either enslave or eliminate them from the face of the earth. In this pursuit, Nazi Germany attacked the then-Soviet Union in June 1941; the valiant Soviet nation triumphed over Nazi racist ideology, liberating Europe and ending World War II, and with it, racist dreams of white supremacy. Since that time, after World War II, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has acted as the true face of White supremacy and racism, as NATO considers only purely “White” nations to be a part of the military alliance.

Conclusion: Jeffrey Epstein as the New Member of KKK

As mentioned earlier, the KKK justified the rape and killing of all the Africa (black) people and called for taking all the necessary measures against other races. Jeffrey Epstein, whose name has become synonymous with paedophiles and racism, is not a new phenomenon in the West. Since the inception of America and even before that, the West has been quite complacent in sexually exploiting other races and nations. The main reason why the European powers started the colonialism and occupation of other countries by force was to enslave people and to exploit them, even sexually. During the colonial occupation, it was the favourite hobby of the Western people to sexually exploit the victim nation, especially the young minor girls. This Western practice is still going on in the Philippines.

People around the globe are condemning Jeffrey Epstein for his abduction of young and minor girls for sexual purposes and human trafficking. The point is that the West, especially the United States’ Justice Department has been carefully redacting the names of influential Western leaders, politicians, businessmen, academicians, and athletes from the Epstein Files. There is no doubt that the history of Europe and America is dark and is being dominated by exploitation of the weak. This deliberate act should not be a surprise for enlightened people, as they are fully aware of the West’s complete and absolute complacency in pedophilia and exploiting young and minor children for illegal and immoral sexual purposes.

Simon Westwood is a Masters student at Dublin City University (DCU), Ireland. He is also a Research Assistant at DCU’s Department of History