The Arab Summit: Ostensibly for Palestine, Inwardly Focused on Iran

The Arab-Islamic summit in Riyadh concluded with a significant gathering of leaders from across the Arab and Islamic worlds to address the ongoing conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon, along with other pressing regional issues. While the participants collectively called for an immediate ceasefire in both Gaza and Lebanon, some leaders, such as the Turkish president, pushed for isolating Israel by imposing economic sanctions and halting trade relations.

At last year’s summit in Riyadh, divisions were apparent regarding breaking economic and diplomatic ties with Israel. However, these dynamics have shifted with the recent political changes in Washington. Former President Donald Trump, known for his robust support of Israel, repeatedly declared during his tenure that he would end the conflicts swiftly, reflecting a different strategic approach in the region.

In his speech at the summit, Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi noted that the region is at a critical juncture. This statement underscored the complex future of the Middle East, where Trump’s eagerness to resolve conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon contrasts starkly with his unwavering support for Israel, including his controversial decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. His stance is intertwined with a clear intent to renew a “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran, satisfying the interests of his Gulf allies.

James Jeffrey, a senior former Trump administration official, commented in an interview with Middle East Eye that “Trump views Iran as a clear threat that must be contained, not through war but by enforcing strict sanctions, particularly on Iranian oil exports.” This approach suggests that Trump saw weakening Iran and restraining its regional militias as essential to reducing violence in both Palestine and Lebanon. Consequently, it’s likely that targeted strikes against Iran-aligned military and political leaders will continue, supported by intelligence operations aiming to limit Iranian influence.

Trump’s return to office could see him inherit a ceasefire framework from the Biden administration aimed at Lebanon, which Hezbollah has shown a tentative willingness to accept. This framework includes strengthening the United Nations peacekeeping forces in Lebanon, deploying the Lebanese Army in Hezbollah’s southern strongholds, and confining Hezbollah forces north of the Litani River. This inherited plan could either garner strong backing from Washington and its Gulf allies or turn Lebanon into another Syria, marked by clashes between Hezbollah’s allies and factions advocating for state-controlled arms. If successful, the containment strategy in Lebanon could extend to Iraq, where signs indicate that pro-Iranian militias are positioning Prime Minister Mohammad Shia al-Sudani as a front to shield themselves from anticipated repercussions.

The unstable conditions in the Red Sea could also be a flashpoint for Trump’s attention, with a commitment to hold Iran and its affiliates accountable. A member of Trump’s campaign stated that unlike Biden, Trump would not “relent against Iran or its militias,” attributing the current regional instability to the Biden administration’s leniency. According to Trump, this perceived diplomatic weakness has allowed Iran to bolster its military capabilities, intensifying security risks to global trade and oil flows from the Gulf.

Trump’s strategy centers on tightening economic sanctions against Iran to restrict its influence without causing complete isolation. This approach leverages Iran’s regional presence as a persistent threat, especially in the Gulf, potentially leading to a Middle Eastern “NATO” led by Israel—a prospect increasingly accepted by the region. Biden’s policy aimed at normalizing Gulf-Iran relations has underscored the improbability of Iran’s integration into a regional framework given its ambitious geopolitical aspirations.

While Trump’s anticipated policies aim to reduce direct U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts, they also signal an intention to address Middle Eastern complexities through regional proxies, notably Israel. This anticipated escalation could bring heightened tension among Arab and Islamic leaders, with varied stances on Israel and expectations for Trump’s strategy. Although Iran has adhered to rules of engagement thus far, it may not maintain this restraint as its fortified regional influence weakens. In the interim, Iran could adopt a “scarecrow” role in the Gulf, sustaining its strategic relevance until it perceives a genuine threat, thereby advancing its long-term ambitions in the region.