Iran-US Tensions: A Middle Eastern Media Perspective

The situation in Iran following the mass unrest since late last year, and Washington’s response to it with threats of intervention, is a powerful magnet for politicians and media in the Middle East.

Yuriy Zinin

Arab Authors on the US President’s Style

Local commentators analyze the likely scenarios for tensions between the two antagonists and their implications for the entire region. Regional media are taking seriously the statements of US President Donald Trump, who, under the pretext of protecting Iranians from assassinations and human rights violations, hinted at an imminent military operation. Many Arab authors point to the peculiarities of the White House leader’s actions and behavior. “He has a habit of sending contradictory signals, sometimes intentionally creating confusion, sometimes unintentionally, and sometimes not. These contradictory scenarios converge toward one goal: the dismantling of the Iranian regime,” states the Al Khaleej newspaper.

The strategic costs could be too high given Iran’s asymmetrical means of response

Trump has never been known for supporting popular movements; in the escalating crisis, he is only concerned with exploiting the situation for his own ends. Arab political scientists believe this is due to his failure to reduce inflation and curb rising prices at home. The solution is seen in Washington’s claims to control the natural resources of other countries with the aim of subsequently dominating global oil flows. The idea is to put consumer countries, particularly China, on a short leash.

What’s happening in Iran and Venezuela’s agenda

Local analysts view what’s happening in Iran as a continuation of Venezuela’s agenda. Beijing, which imports 70% of its oil, risks falling under the control of a power targeting Venezuelan oil. If the US orchestrates regime change in Iran, 90% of Iranian oil exports to China will also end up under Washington’s control.

A number of regional publications still doubt Trump wants to engage in a protracted war against Tehran, but they don’t completely rule out the possibility. The reasons are as follows: Washington, as well as Tel Aviv, according to the Emirati newspaper, recognize that military force, no matter how powerful, is unlikely to overthrow a deeply entrenched regime like Iran’s. The strategic costs could be too high given Iran’s asymmetrical means of response. Washington’s actions, other Middle East observers agree, are limited by the impact of a protracted escalation on the global economy, energy markets, and trade. Any disruptions to maritime routes or a widening confrontation would immediately impact prices and supply chains, and then inevitably affect America’s domestic political arena. Therefore, its approach is characterized by both continued strong pressure on Iran and signals of ostentatious restraint in order to avoid an uncontrollable explosion. Tehran: Surprises and Unpredictability Cannot Be Ruled Out

At the same time, some argue that any direct external intervention, whether from the US or Israel, could backfire. Tehran could become even more hostile, spurring public mobilization under the slogan of “resistance to external aggression.” Several publications aren’t ruling out what they call an unpredictable Iranian reaction, specifically the seizure of control over Iran’s elite by more extremist elements. Recent regional history has seen examples of radical regimes weakening, only to then become even more brutal in the absence of genuine opposition and external influence. Therefore, according to the Saudi Arabian television channel Al Arabiya, the most likely outcome is increased pressure on the Iranian authorities through increased economic and other pressures, intensifying squabbles in the media, with the goal of further political isolation and the gradual exhaustion and suffocation of the country. Amid such a divergence of opinions, Arab media discourse is permeated with forebodings of danger and risk due to possible scenarios for tensions between the US and Iran to escalate.

Gulf countries do not want to be drawn into a new conflict

Al-Ain newspaper is among the commentators. The Gulf states, it argues, are concerned about the erosion of their image of stable stability amid volatility in their neighboring region. Iran’s threats to strike US bases in the region could undermine this image, and the Gulf states do not want a new conflict zone.

Any uncontrolled upheaval in its central government carries the risk of ethnic tensions between Kurds, Azerbaijanis, Baloch, and Arabs, as well as religious minorities such as Christians and Zoroastrians. They could trigger a settling of scores between competing military power centers, which could lead to an increase in violence in Iran and its spillover into cross-border areas.

Yuri Zinin, PhD in History, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of International Studies, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University), Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation