|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Welcome to The Geopolity’s What We’re Watching (3W), our daily look at the interconnected worlds of Geopolitics, Economics and Energy. Curated from the world’s leading sources of information, our analysis and commentary is designed to help you make sense of the events driving the major developments in the world.
In our previous 3W analysis, we argued two things. First, that in the Middle East Israel is leading the US. Second, that under Israeli leadership, the US has manoeuvred itself into a greatly weakened position, giving rise to a newly confident Iran.
We said that Iran is now acting independently, confidently, as a result of the outcome of what it refers to as the Ramadan War. That it was not defeated in this war is victory for the country in-and-off-itself. That it was able to inflict serious damage on the US military foothold in the region, effectively pushing the US military out of its “first ring” around Iran (UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait) and its “second ring” (Jordan), into the “third and fourth rings” (Israel, Cyprus, Bulgaria), was another victory. And through asserting its inherent, natural control over the Strait of Hormuz, Iran achieved a third victory, effectively placing the US in an economic chokehold. This part of our 3W assessment was echoed by The Associated Press over the weekend. AP says Iran’s leaders know about the diminishing stockpiles of key US weapons such as advanced missile interceptors; that the war is deeply unpopular with Americans; that as long as the Strait of Hormuz is closed the price of gas and other goods will stay high ahead of US congressional elections in November; that trying to open it by force would be costly and may require American ground troops; and that their Houthi allies in Yemen could widen the war and disrupt another major trade route.
At 3W we further said that from this position of relative strength, Iran is now confidently proceeding based upon a strategy that seeks to cement its victories, by creating a new security arrangement for the broader Middle East. This means Iran is no longer following the script prepared by the US as to what to discuss, when, where and with whom. The negotiations with Oman on the Strait of Hormuz indicate that Iran now acts independently. Effectively sidelining the US.
Iran is now confidently proceeding based upon a strategy that seeks to cement its victories, by creating a new security arrangement for the broader Middle East
Supporting this part of our 3W assessment, Trita Parsi in a conversation with Glenn Diesen says that Oman has been under heavy US pressure to act as an agent of the US in the talks with Iran. With the US going so far as threatening to bomb Oman (Trump May 2026) or sanction it (Rubio after the MOU). 3W notes this indicates the US has effectively given up on the idea that it will be able to sit down with Iran face-to-face. Iran just will not speak to the US anymore.
Further support for the original 3W assessment comes from the fact that Iran is approaching the negotiations regarding the Strait of Hormuz on the basis of its understanding of MOU Article 5, which says that “the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days”. Effectively this means Iran is not approaching the Strait of Hormuz as an international waterway, traffic through which needs to be coordinated, as the US wants Iran to see things. But as a domestic water split between Iran and Oman, traffic through which needs to be managed. On Sunday, namely, Iran said that a deal with Oman would not open the Strait of Hormuz, write Reuters and The New York Times. Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araqchi said Iran and Oman were “very close” to an agreement on a new shipping route through the strait, but reopening it would depend on other conditions. The secretary of Iran’s top national security body, Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr, listed other demands including ending U.S. threats against Iran, stopping aggression against Iran and its Lebanese, Palestinian, Yemeni and Iraqi allies, lifting a blockade and sanctions on Iran and freeing Iranian assets. As if to make a point, Iran has been targeting and hitting a number of tankers carrying Emirati crude over the weekend, Reuters adds.
Speaking on the Chris Hedges podcast, Alastair Crooke says that Iran’s conditions for an opening of the Strait of Hormuz are a hardened version of the MOU. Under the MOU 2.0 now envision by Iran, the US has to deliver upon all its commitments before Iran reciprocates via opening the Strait. Iran has taken this stance firstly because it feels the US betrayed the MOU, and secondly because it feels confident in its military and economic position relative to the US, exactly as 3W speculated earlier this week. 3W further notes that this was a foreseeable development. The moment the US signed the original MOU just to deceive Iran, to, in the words of JD Vance, “buy time”, Iran would ask greater concessions from the US as part of any talks on an MOU 2.0 This is what is happening now.
This leaves the US in a quagmire, as there is nothing it can do to force Iran into accepting a different set of terms. The US’s highest-ranking soldier, chairman of the joint chiefs, general Dan Caine, has privately made clear to other top Trump advisers that the US needs to find an off-ramp from the war with Iran, because airpower alone is unlikely to achieve President Donald Trump’s stated objectives and the other military options on the table to escalate the conflict could backfire, writes CNN.
At 3W, we look at the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement, signed by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkiye on Friday, in this light. The three countries have committed to collective defense against attacks on any of the three nations, writes The New York Times. The text of the agreement was not made public, making it unclear what the parties’ obligations are. But the Pakistani Foreign Ministry said in a statement that the pact “stipulates that any armed attack against any one of the three states shall be regarded as an attack against them all.” President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, who traveled to Saudi Arabia to sign the agreement, said in a post on social media that its implementation could include joint defense industry projects and counterterrorism operations. Sayed Krimly, Saudi Arabia’s deputy minister for public diplomacy, wrote on social media that the pact would allow the three countries to integrate their defenses to deter threats. He also said that the three Muslim-majority nations did not seek to establish a new “military axis or sectarian bloc” or set off an arms race. Other officials from the three countries released similar statements saying that the agreement was defensive in nature, that it was not aimed at any specific country and that other states could join. Conversations with Egypt have apparently taken place already.
3W notes that despite the words of denial, it is hard not to see the agreement as a unification against Iran. The Saudi newspaper Arab News even called this out explicitly, referring to the agreement as “The alliance against Tehran on three fronts”. Through the agreement, “Riyadh … surprised Tehran by establishing a bloc uniting three countries bordering Iran.. a force with strategic depth, greater military capabilities, 400 million people — four times that of Iran — and more than 1,400 km of land borders overlooking Iran.” 3W also notes the timing of this announcement. It comes exactly at the moment the US is desperately seeking an exit ramp from its Iran entanglement. In other words, three traditional US allies, all bordering Iran, come together in a military focused treaty, at the exact moment the US military wants to pull out of the War on Iran. It all leaves us at 3W with the distinct impression that the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement is coordinated with the US. That it is designed to enable the US to militarily pull out of the Middle East region, by bringing in the powerful armies of Turkiye and Pakistan, enabled by Saudi funding.
It comes exactly at the moment the US is desperately seeking an exit ramp from its Iran entanglement
If this is indeed the case, it signals a dangerous development, for it pitches a “Sunni Triangle” against the “Shi’s Axis of Resistance”. In other words, it gives the war, that was started to enable Israel to become the dominant power in the Middle East region, the characteristic of a regional sectarian conflict. It would make Iran face Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Pakistan, rather than the US and Israel. And it could quickly escalate and suck in the other countries in the Middle East, especially those such as Lebanon, Iraq, Bahrain and Kuwait whose societies are divided along religious lines. While such an outcome would be a disaster for the Middle East region, it would give the US a convenient excuse for packing up and leaving, while for Israel and its Greater Israel project, as 3W previously explained, it would be a dream come true.
It need not be like this, however. Any wise and sincere political leader in the broader Middle East region will recognize the US’s current quagmire as an opportunity for the region. After decades of being directly dominated by the US, through military bases all over the place, the countries in the region now have to choose between coming together to preserve indirect US hegemony, or to remove US hegemony. An exclusive alliance against Iran would result in the prior. An inclusive alliance with Iran, however, could redesign the security architecture for the region and thereby remove the US ability to influence affairs.
At 3W we fear the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement is designed to be the prior, while we hope it is for the latter.