Russia and Iran Seal $25 Billion Nuclear Deal in the Shadow of Conflict

Russia and Iran Seal $25 Billion Nuclear Deal in the Shadow of Conflict

    Friday, September 26, 2025   No comments

In a move that signals a profound shift in the geopolitical landscape, Iran and Russia have signed a monumental $25 billion agreement to expand Iran’s nuclear energy program. The deal, coming just 15 weeks after a major US-Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, is being interpreted by analysts as more than a simple commercial venture; it is a strategic gambit that likely includes unspoken security guarantees, effectively placing Iran’s nuclear ambitions under a Russian shield.

The Deal: A Massive Expansion of Nuclear Capacity

The agreement, signed between Iran’s Hormoz Energy Company and Russia’s state nuclear corporation, Rosatom, entails the construction of four new, advanced nuclear power plants in Iran’s southern Hormozgan province. The project, which will occupy a 500-hectare site, involves third-generation reactors, representing a significant technological leap. This deal is an execution of a memorandum of understanding signed days earlier in Moscow, highlighting the rapid pace of deepening ties between the two nations.

This expansion is in addition to Rosatom’s ongoing work completing the second and third units at the existing Bushehr nuclear power plant, solidifying Russia's role as the primary architect of Iran's civilian nuclear infrastructure.

Strategic Context: The Unspoken Security Guarantee

The timing and scale of this agreement cannot be divorced from the recent military confrontation. A 12-day war, initiated by a US and Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, demonstrated Tehran’s vulnerability to Western military action. However, one critical detail from that conflict has not gone unnoticed in world capitals: Russian-built facilities, namely the Bushehr power plant, were conspicuously spared from attack.

This selective targeting is widely believed to be a deliberate choice by the US and Israel to avoid a direct military confrontation with Russia. It underscored a stark reality: infrastructure under Moscow’s umbrella enjoys a level of protection that purely Iranian facilities do not. 

It is within this context that the new $25 billion deal must be viewed. While officially a "peaceful nuclear energy" project, the agreement almost certainly contains implicit, if not explicit, security understandings. By massively expanding its physical and financial stake in Iran’s nuclear program, Russia is raising the stakes for any future adversary.

An attack on these new facilities would not just be an attack on Iran; it would be an attack on a $25 billion Russian asset, potentially triggering a direct response from Moscow. This creates a powerful deterrent. The security guarantee may also manifest in the form of advanced Russian air defense technology, such as the S-400 system, specifically deployed to protect these sensitive sites.

Geopolitical Implications: A New Axis Solidifies

This deal represents a formalization of the Iran-Russia axis, which has been strengthening over years of shared opposition to Western foreign policy. For Russia, the agreement serves multiple strategic purposes:

• Economic Leverage: It injects billions into its state-owned nuclear industry, circumventing Western sanctions.
• Strategic Depth: It anchors Russian influence deep in the Middle East and the crucial Strait of Hormuz. 
• Deterrence Posturing: It signals to the West that Russia is willing to directly underwrite the security of US adversaries, complicating future military calculations.

For Iran, the benefits are equally clear. Beyond the energy independence the plants may provide, the deal offers a form of insulation from external military threats that it could not achieve on its own. In the wake of the recent attacks, securing this Russian "nuclear umbrella" for its facilities is a paramount strategic victory.

Beyond this deal...

The $25 billion nuclear deal between Moscow and Tehran is far more than an energy contract. It is a direct consequence of the recent conflict and a strategic response to it. By embedding its nuclear corporations ever deeper into Iranian soil, Russia is not just building power plants; it is constructing a geopolitical fortress. The unspoken message to the West is clear: any future strike on Iran’s nuclear program will have to calculate the high risk of striking a Russian target, fundamentally altering the calculus of confrontation in the Middle East. 

Saudi-Pakistan Defense Pact Reshapes Middle Eastern Geopolitics

Saudi-Pakistan Defense Pact Reshapes Middle Eastern Geopolitics

    Wednesday, September 17, 2025   No comments

In a move that has sent seismic waves across the international community, Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan have formally signed a mutual defense pact. The announcement, coming in the immediate aftermath of a devastating Israeli attack on Qatar, signals a dramatic and potentially dangerous realignment of power in a region already on a knife's edge.

This agreement, far more than a simple reaffirmation of longstanding ties, represents a fundamental shift in the strategic calculus of the Middle East and South Asia, with implications for global security, energy markets, and the future of conflict in the region.

From Strategic Partnership to Ironclad Guarantee

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan share a deep, decades-long relationship built on a foundation of economic support, religious solidarity, and security cooperation. Riyadh has long been a financial benefactor to Islamabad, while Pakistan has provided the Kingdom with military trainers and troops for its defense. However, this new pact elevates that relationship to an entirely new level.

The core tenet of the agreement, as stated by the Pakistani prime minister’s office, is that "any aggression against either country will be treated as aggression against both." This transforms a friendly understanding into a legally binding, ironclad security guarantee. For Saudi Arabia, a nation rich in wealth and oil but with a relatively small population, this pact effectively places it under the umbrella of Pakistan's formidable military—the world’s sixth-largest—and, most significantly, its nuclear arsenal.

The Qatar Catalyst: A Region on the Brink

The timing of the announcement is impossible to ignore. The pact was finalized during emergency talks in Riyadh between Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, held just days after Israel's unprecedented attack on Qatar.

This context is crucial. The strike on Qatar, a nation that also hosts a major U.S. military base, demonstrated a terrifying escalation in the ongoing regional proxy wars. For Saudi Arabia, a longstanding rival of Qatar, the attack was likely seen not just as an strike against a neighbor, but as a harbinger of unchecked aggression that could one day be directed at Riyadh itself. The message from the Saudi leadership is clear: the traditional security architecture, heavily reliant on the United States, is no longer seen as dependable. They are seeking new, more immediate guarantees for their survival.

By aligning directly with a nuclear-armed power, Saudi Arabia is sending a powerful deterrent message to all regional adversaries, primarily Israel and Iran: an attack on the Kingdom will now carry an incalculable and existential risk.

Iran's Calculated Response: Diplomatic Outreach in a Shifting Landscape

This development comes as Iran's security leadership has initiated a regional outreach, seeking to capitalize on the chaos to advance its own vision for a new security architecture. In a highly significant move, Ali Larijani, a senior advisor to Iran’s Supreme Leader and former Parliament Speaker, was dispatched to Saudi Arabia.

Larijani’s mission is multifaceted:

• Testing the Waters: Iran is likely probing Saudi Arabia's commitment to its new partnership with Pakistan and gauging its level of anxiety post-Qatar.

• Offering an Alternative: Tehran is positioning itself as a necessary partner for regional stability, arguing that a collective security agreement that includes Iran is preferable to a polarized arms race.

• Exploiting Divisions: Iran may see an opportunity to drive a wedge between Saudi Arabia and its traditional allies by presenting itself as a more reliable, or at least inevitable, neighbor in a post-American era.

The Larijani mission underscores that while the Saudi-Pakistan pact is a Sunni-centric bloc, Iran is not remaining idle. It is responding with its own diplomatic offensive, recognizing that the regional order is up for grabs.

The Nuclear Question: A Delicate Balance

The most profound element of the pact is Pakistan’s status as a nuclear power. This agreement implicitly, though not explicitly, introduces a nuclear dimension into the heart of Middle Eastern security.

• Deterrence or Provocation? From Saudi Arabia's perspective, this is the ultimate deterrent. It hopes the mere existence of this pact will prevent any future aggression. However, from the perspective of Israel and Iran, it represents a massive escalation, potentially forcing them to recalibrate their own military and strategic doctrines.

• The "Sunni Shield" Narrative: The pact solidifies a powerful bloc of Sunni Muslim nations, with Pakistan’s bomb acting as a counterweight to Shiite Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Israel’s presumed nuclear capabilities. This risks hardening the sectarian and geopolitical fault lines in the region, moving from a cold war to a much more volatile standoff.

Global Repercussions and Shifting Alliances

The ramifications of this defense pact extend far beyond the Middle East:

1. A Challenge to U.S. Influence: This is a stark indication of Riyadh’s desire to diversify its security partnerships away from Washington. While not a full break, it shows Saudi Arabia is willing to build an independent security infrastructure, reducing its reliance on the U.S. military umbrella.

2. A Dilemma for Washington: The United States now faces a complex challenge. Pakistan is a major non-NATO ally, while Saudi Arabia remains a critical energy partner. However, a mutual defense pact that could potentially draw a nuclear-armed Pakistan into a Middle Eastern conflict is a nightmare scenario for U.S. strategists.
   

3. 
   India's Strategic Anxiety: For India, Pakistan’s arch-rival, this is deeply troubling news. It formalizes the military alliance between its two adversaries—Pakistan and Saudi Arabia’s close ally, China. India must now consider the possibility that a future crisis with Pakistan could, in the worst case, involve a much broader coalition or divert Pakistani resources and attention westward.

4. Iran's Isolation and Response: For Iran, the pact is the consolidation of a hostile, US-backed, and now nuclear-linked alliance on its flanks. The Larijani mission shows its strategy is two-fold: resist this consolidation through diplomacy while likely accelerating its own military and nuclear programs as an ultimate guarantee.  Being aware of what Iran represents for Shia Muslims, and recognizing that Pakistan has a large Shia Muslim community, steps are being taken to signal that this pact is not intended to threaten Iran or exclude Shia Muslims. To this end, on September 18, the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia called his Iranian counterpart, not details of the call was made available. And on September 19, the Saudi Minister of Defense called his Iranian counterpart to inform "Iran of the details of the Saudi-Pakistani mutual defense treaty, and provided a document with information." Iran's DM thanked the Saudi Defense Ministry for its briefing, and offered its good wishes for the success of this alliance and Islamic nations in general, stating that "we will always support initiatives that seek to strengthen the mutual cooperation between Islamic nations." said Iran's Minister of Defense Aziz Nasirzadeh.
   

A New, More Dangerous Era

The Saudi-Pakistan mutual defense pact is not merely a signed document; it is a symptom of a world order fracturing and reorganizing itself. It is born from a moment of extreme crisis and has triggered a swift and calculated response from Iran, as seen in the Larijani mission.

While intended to create stability through deterrence, the pact risks creating a more brittle and dangerous landscape. By explicitly tying the fate of the Arabian Peninsula to the nuclear calculus of South Asia, it has created a tripwire that, if ever crossed, could escalate a regional conflict into a global catastrophe overnight. The world is now witnessing a high-stakes diplomatic chess game where the moves are bold, the players are nervous, and the consequences are unimaginable. The world will be watching this new axis of power with bated breath and profound concern.

Media Review: Nationalism, Distrust, and the Specter of Regime Change

Media Review: Nationalism, Distrust, and the Specter of Regime Change

    Wednesday, August 13, 2025   No comments

 

1. Netanyahu’s Overt Call: “Iran for Iranians”

On August 12, 2025, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a striking video address aimed directly at the Iranian people. He urged them to “take to the streets”, “demand justice”, and resist “ruling fanatics” in Tehran. Leveraging Iran’s current water crisis—one described as the worst drought in a century—he promised that “Israel’s top water experts will flood into every Iranian city,” offering cutting-edge recycling and desalination technologies once “your country is free.” Netanyahu framed this not merely as political pressure but as a humanitarian overture, rhetorically intertwining water scarcity with political liberation.
His language tugged at historical symbols—the “descendants of Cyrus the Great”—and invoked Zionist forebears: “as our founding father, Theodor Herzl, said... ‘if you will it, a free Iran is not a dream.’” Critics across the region condemned the message as a blatant interference in Iran’s sovereignty and a call for regime change.

2. Expansionist Imagery and the “Greater Israel” Vision

Simultaneously, in an i24 News interview, Netanyahu responded affirmatively when asked if he felt a connection to the concept of “Greater Israel”—a historical extremist vision stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, enveloping Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. He stated flatly: "Very much." (Note: the Arabic-language Al Jazeera coverage confirmed condemnation by Jordan’s foreign ministry of these remarks, calling them “dangerous provocative escalation” and a violation of sovereignty and international law).  Jordan officially denounced these statements as “absurd illusions” that undermine Arab states and Palestinian rights, and called for international accountability.

3. Mutually Reinforcing Nationalist Narratives

These developments crystallize a deeper pattern of mutual antagonism: just as many in the Arab and Muslim worlds chant “Death to Israel” (often interpreted as opposition to the Zionist regime, not genocide), Israeli leaders—including Netanyahu—express parallel desires for overthrowing nationalist or Islamist regimes, from Iraq and Syria to Iran and potentially Turkey. Israel’s historical role in the fall of Arab nationalist regimes—the Ba’athists in Iraq and Syria, Nasserism in Egypt, Gaddafi in Libya—sets precedent for its current posture toward Iran, adding layers of distrust and ideological competition.

4. Media Narratives vs. Unspoken Realities

Mainstream coverage often frames Israel’s messaging as defensive—justified by existential threats or humanitarian concern. Yet the explicit linkage between Israel’s offer of technology and regime change reveals a more assertive posture: Israel positioning itself not only as a regional power but as a potential kingmaker.

This dynamic echoes past episodes: British and U.S. support for regime change in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, often under the banner of liberation, but frequently yielding destabilization. Indeed, analysts warn that regime elimination without a constructive transition plan can exacerbate chaos and strengthen hardliners—concerns now surging around Iran.

5. Broader Implications: Ethno-Religious Nationalism and Regional Instability

The mutual calls for regime change are not isolated acts of political posturing — they are rooted in competing nationalist visions that draw their legitimacy from deeply embedded historical, ethnic, and religious narratives. This clash produces a dangerous self-reinforcing cycle that shapes nearly every major crisis in the Middle East.

Israel’s vision:

Israeli statecraft, particularly under Netanyahu, increasingly draws on biblical and historicist narratives to justify a posture of permanent expansion and dominance. This is not merely about securing existing borders; it’s about positioning Israel as the central civilizational power in the region. The appeal to “Greater Israel” ties modern foreign policy directly to ancient territorial claims, allowing nationalist leaders to frame strategic moves as fulfilling a sacred mission rather than a negotiable political agenda. In this worldview, offering water technology to Iranians is not only a humanitarian gesture but also a demonstration of how Israel imagines itself — as a benevolent hegemon to “liberated” peoples, once they accept the dismantling of regimes seen as hostile.

Resistance’s response:

Arab nationalist and Islamist movements see this Israeli narrative as an existential threat — not only to Palestinian sovereignty but to the very idea of Arab or Islamic self-determination. From their perspective, the vision of “Greater Israel” confirms suspicions that Israel’s security discourse masks territorial ambitions stretching across multiple states. This perception reinforces a siege mentality, where even minor concessions to Israel are framed as steps toward regional capitulation. Consequently, slogans like “Death to Israel” — while often clarified by their authors as a rejection of the Zionist regime rather than the Jewish people — are received by Israelis as genocidal, deepening the emotional and political chasm.

Mutual demonization:

Each side interprets the other’s rhetoric in its most maximalist and threatening form. Israeli leaders often portray their regional adversaries as irredeemable aggressors whose regimes must be toppled for peace to be possible. Conversely, Arab and Islamist nationalists cast Israeli policy as inherently expansionist, immune to compromise, and bent on cultural erasure. This mutual framing leaves no space for recognizing reformist or moderate currents on either side. Internal dissent within Iran, for example, is subsumed under the binary of “pro-regime” or “agent of foreign powers,” while dissent within Israel against expansionism is marginalized as naïve or disloyal.

Media as a force multiplier:

Regional and global media ecosystems amplify these narratives by privileging official statements and the most provocative soundbites. Nuanced or dissenting voices rarely receive the same coverage. This selective amplification means that both publics primarily hear confirmation of their worst fears. Israeli audiences see chants and missile parades without context; Arab audiences see maps of an expanded Israel without the debates inside Israel over their feasibility or morality. In effect, media serves as a mirror that reflects back the most polarizing version of reality, hardening nationalist sentiment and making diplomatic de-escalation politically costly for any leader.

The result is a feedback loop: nationalist rhetoric begets reciprocal hostility, which then justifies the next round of escalation. Over time, this pattern entrenches zero-sum thinking, where any gain for one side is assumed to be an irreversible loss for the other.

6. What Comes Next?

With Israel openly signaling support for regime change, and invoking ideological justifications, the region edges closer to escalatory brinkmanship. If Iran responds—either through intensified repression or reprisals—the potential for conflict could spiral. Global actors—especially the U.S., Europe, Russia, and regional powers—must urgently clarify whether they support such overt regime-change diplomacy or seek de-escalation through dialogue and multilateral engagement.

The events of August 12, 2025—Netanyahu’s video appeal and the embrace of “Greater Israel”—are not isolated flashes of rhetoric but crystallize long-standing ideological and geopolitical fault lines. The language of liberation and water aid interwoven with conquest and regime overthrow exemplifies the complex, dangerous entanglement of ethno-religious nationalism, realpolitik, and regional power plays. As each side frames itself as the rightful architect of the region’s future, the real victims may be stability, human rights, and any hope for equitable governance.

Israel’s prime minister’s call for Iranians to overthrow their government mirrors Iran’s rejection of the “Zionist regime,” underscoring two points: first, the deep incompatibility between race-based or religion-based nationalism and genuinely pluralistic societies; second, the role of supremacist ideologies as a driving force behind such nationalist regimes. Zionism—with both its religious dimension (membership in the Jewish faith) and its ethnic dimension (Jewish identity as race or ethnicity)—and Arab or Persian ethnic nationalism, alongside Islamism as a religious form, are locked in a clash that cannot be resolved by one prevailing over the others, but perhaps only by the eventual failure of them all.

  

Iran–Pakistan Relations before and after the 12-Day Israel-Iran War

Iran–Pakistan Relations before and after the 12-Day Israel-Iran War

    Sunday, June 29, 2025   No comments

The recent 12-day war between Israel, US, and Iran has not only reshaped Middle Eastern dynamics but also sent ripples across South Asia—particularly impacting Iran's complex but evolving relationship with Pakistan. Although the two neighbors have shared a history of cautious cooperation punctuated by periods of distrust, the latest conflict appears to be accelerating a strategic convergence between Tehran and Islamabad. Just over a year ago, in January 2024, relations between Iran and Pakistan nearly derailed after a rare exchange of cross-border missile strikes. Iran targeted what it claimed were hideouts of the Sunni militant group "Jaish al-Adl" in Pakistan’s Balochistan province. Islamabad responded with airstrikes on Iranian territory, claiming to hit Baloch separatists threatening Pakistani sovereignty.

Despite this alarming escalation, diplomacy prevailed. A pivotal visit by then-Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi in April 2024 helped cool tensions. The two countries agreed to treat their border as a “marketplace, not a battlefield,” leading to unprecedented cooperation—including intelligence sharing and a joint security operation in Balochistan. This pragmatic rapprochement was further reinforced in July and November 2024, when both nations coordinated the arrest and extradition of militants operating on either side of the border.

The 12-day war launched by Israel on Iran has reignited fears of regional destabilization. For Pakistan, the risk is not just ideological alignment with a fellow Muslim-majority state under siege; it's deeply strategic. Iran’s internal security vulnerabilities—exposed by Israeli strikes—create a vacuum that could empower militant groups like Jaish al-Adl, which have already carried out dozens of deadly attacks in Iran’s Sistan-Balochistan province. Pakistan fears that a weakened Iranian state would allow these groups to spill over into Pakistani territory, intensifying separatist violence in its own Balochistan province.

Moreover, the war has created space for greater alignment against perceived Israeli and Western aggression. Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif publicly condemned Israel, warning that Islamic nations could face similar fates if they remain divided. At the United Nations, Pakistan’s envoy described Israel's actions as a threat to the entire region and expressed full solidarity with the Iranian people.

General Asim Munir, Pakistan’s powerful Army Chief, visited Washington mid-June—his first official trip since 2001. There, he cautioned U.S. officials, including former President Donald Trump, against supporting the Israeli offensive. Munir argued that toppling Iran’s regime would lead to chaos across Balochistan and empower groups like Jaish al-Adl, which Washington itself classifies as a terrorist organization.

In private discussions, Munir also warned of the precedent that bombing Iran’s nuclear infrastructure might set. Although Israel has historically remained silent on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, Islamabad remains sensitive to parallels drawn with its own facilities.

Despite its public support for Iran, Pakistan remains interested in preserving its long-standing but strained relationship with the U.S.—particularly in light of renewed American interest sparked by the Iran conflict. Pakistan’s hope is to use this geopolitical moment to negotiate economic and strategic concessions from both Washington and Beijing.

Over the past decade, Pakistan has leaned heavily into its strategic partnership with China, especially through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Yet Islamabad understands that overdependence on China is risky, particularly amid growing U.S.-China rivalry. Diversifying economic partners while aligning diplomatically with both superpowers offers Islamabad a path to stability and leverage.

The 12-day war has likely accelerated the slow-burning strategic realignment between Iran and Pakistan. Historically divided by sectarian suspicions and divergent foreign policy priorities, the two nations now find themselves driven together by shared security concerns, declining Western engagement, and expanding Chinese influence.

This doesn’t mean a full-fledged alliance is inevitable. Deep mistrust lingers—especially over past proxy support and sectarian competition. However, as both nations face a common threat from Israeli aggression, cross-border militancy, and marginalization by Western powers, their overlapping interests may now outweigh historical grievances.

The war has made one thing clear: Iran and Pakistan can no longer afford ambiguity in their relationship. Whether driven by fear, necessity, or opportunity, they appear to be moving—cautiously but decisively—toward a more robust partnership.

Media review: What if Iranians, Americans and Arabs made uranium together?

Media review: What if Iranians, Americans and Arabs made uranium together?

    Saturday, May 17, 2025   No comments

 President Donald Trump, still touring the Middle East, keeps saying how “very happy” he’d be if he could make a deal with Iran. Iran, meanwhile, needs such a deal to avoid being bombed by Israel and strangled economically by the resumption of United Nations sanctions later this year.

If reports out of Tehran are correct, those pressures may have motivated Iranian leaders to come up with an unconventional idea that deserves a hearing: They want to work with their enemies, not against them, to build Iran’s nuclear programme.

Their brainstorm envisions a kind of joint venture among Iranians, Saudis and Emiratis, as well as private investors including US companies. This new consortium would enrich uranium, a fissile material that can be used to generate electricity or make medical isotopes – and to build nuclear bombs. Because Iranians, Arabs, Americans and others would be working together, it would be easy to verify that this atomic programme remains civilian rather than military.

At first blush, the idea seems outlandish. How could mortal enemies (Tehran’s theocracy is based in large part on wishing death to America as well as Israel) collaborate around the very material that has brought them to the brink of war?

At second glance, though, the notion’s sheer audacity – let’s call it chutzpah – may be exactly what these nuclear negotiations need to get unstuck.

AN ELEGANT IDEA

In a way, the Iranian proposal reminds me of the European Coal and Steel Community, set up in 1951 by six founding nations and led by France and Germany, who had fought three bitter wars in one lifetime and struggled to imagine each other as anything other than enemies.

To prevent a fourth war, French statesmen such as Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman proposed joint custody over the raw materials of warfare – at the time, coal and steel. And German leaders such as Konrad Adenauer, eager to reconcile with their neighbours, agreed. Against all odds, this ECSC would blossom into what is today the European Union.

Continue reading the article >>

Building Bridges Amid Turbulence: The Fourth Arab-Iranian Dialogue Conference in Doha

Building Bridges Amid Turbulence: The Fourth Arab-Iranian Dialogue Conference in Doha

    Saturday, May 10, 2025   No comments

The Fourth Arab-Iranian Dialogue Conference commenced on May 10 in Doha, Qatar, under the theme “Strong Relations and Shared Interests.” Organized jointly by the Al Jazeera Center for Studies and Iran’s Strategic Council on Foreign Relations, this event brings together senior officials, diplomats, and experts from both Arab countries and Iran. The primary goal is to promote mutual understanding, regional cooperation, and a strategic framework for enduring peace and economic collaboration in an increasingly fragile geopolitical landscape.

This year's conference, held from May 10 to 12, reflects a consistent effort to sustain dialogue between Arab states and Iran. Previous sessions addressed regional crises, security and economic solutions, and collaborative frameworks. Now, the focus has shifted to deepening cooperation and building trust. As emphasized in the opening remarks by Sheikh Hamad bin Thamer Al Thani, Chairman of Al Jazeera Media Network, the event is taking place amid complex regional dynamics. It calls for intellectual rigor and strategic thinking to find innovative approaches for resolving conflicts and fostering stability.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reinforced this sentiment by underscoring Iran’s commitment to peaceful nuclear energy and regional harmony. He highlighted that Iran sees the acquisition of nuclear weapons as forbidden and remains engaged in good-faith negotiations with global powers. Araghchi stressed the principle of good neighborliness and reiterated Iran’s dedication to regional reconciliation through dialogue, not confrontation. He proposed institutionalizing the dialogue platform to sustain intellectual and diplomatic communication.

Former Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, now head of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations, added that regional prosperity depends on a shared commitment to peace. He outlined a vision of joint development, particularly in the energy sector, spanning both traditional and renewable sources. Kharrazi also addressed urgent humanitarian concerns, especially the crisis in Gaza, describing Israel’s actions as expansionist and destabilizing. He called for unified diplomatic efforts among regional powers, legal accountability for war crimes, and collaborative humanitarian initiatives, including support for displaced populations and post-war reconstruction.

The conference does not occur in a vacuum. It unfolds against a backdrop of profound regional instability—from enduring conflicts in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen to the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza. These ongoing challenges have made clear the limitations of unilateral approaches and underscored the necessity for structured, inclusive dialogue. The Doha conference emerges as a critical step toward a cooperative regional architecture rooted in shared interests and historical interconnectedness.

In essence, the Fourth Arab-Iranian Dialogue Conference is more than a diplomatic gathering—it is a response to escalating crises and a testament to the power of dialogue during times of division. While significant obstacles remain, this initiative signals a collective willingness to prioritize cooperation over conflict and to seek sustainable paths toward peace and prosperity in the Middle East.

Saudi-Iran -- A New Chapter of Regional Cooperation Amid Global Turbulence

Saudi-Iran -- A New Chapter of Regional Cooperation Amid Global Turbulence

    Wednesday, April 23, 2025   No comments

In a symbolic and significant diplomatic exchange, Saudi Arabia’s Minister of Defense, Prince Khalid bin Salman, visited Tehran and delivered a personal letter from King Salman to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The high-level meeting underscores the deepening normalization of relations between the two regional powerhouses, Iran and Saudi Arabia, and signals a new phase of cooperation with potential implications far beyond the Middle East.

During the meeting, Ayatollah Khamenei emphasized that Tehran and Riyadh can have a “complementary and mutually beneficial” relationship. He expressed Iran’s readiness to assist Saudi Arabia in sectors where Iran has achieved notable progress, highlighting the potential for constructive collaboration rather than rivalry. Khamenei warned, however, of external forces seeking to sabotage this rapprochement and called for regional unity, stressing that cooperation among neighboring nations is preferable to reliance on foreign powers.

Prince Khalid echoed the sentiment, stating that he arrived in Tehran with a clear agenda to expand bilateral relations and strengthen cooperation across various fields. He voiced optimism that this new chapter in Saudi-Iran ties could lead to stronger relations than ever before.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian also welcomed the Saudi minister, reaffirming Iran’s commitment to deepening ties with Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations. He emphasized the shared capacity of the two nations to solve regional problems independently, without foreign interference, and expressed hope that the emerging friendship would reinforce Islamic solidarity and thwart attempts to sow discord in the region.

President Pezeshkian also touched on the broader symbolic importance of this rapprochement, suggesting that a unified voice among Islamic nations could serve as a powerful example of peaceful coexistence and progress. He linked regional unity to the prevention of humanitarian catastrophes, pointing to ongoing tragedies like the situation in Gaza.

In a separate meeting, the Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Ali Akbar Ahmadian, reiterated that the normalization agreement signed in March 2023 has led to a rise in bilateral ties. He highlighted prospects for joint investments and economic cooperation, noting that strengthened economic ties could further stabilize and secure the region. The agreement he was referring to was brokered by China in 2023 as part of a security re-arragement to stabalize the region.

Prince Khalid, for his part, described engagement with Iran as the cornerstone of regional security collaboration, underlining the Saudi leadership’s determination to cultivate friendly ties at all levels. He also called for collective Islamic action against Israeli occupation and expansionist policies, reinforcing the sense of shared geopolitical interests.

Significance Amid Global Uncertainty

This warming of Saudi-Iranian relations comes at a time when the global order is increasingly unstable. Conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine, shifting alliances, and economic uncertainty have all heightened the importance of regional diplomacy. The Saudi-Iran rapprochement not only represents a strategic recalibration but also signals a broader desire for regional autonomy and resilience.

For decades, Riyadh and Tehran stood on opposing sides of regional conflicts, often backing rival factions in places like Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon. The resumption of ties, brokered in part by China, marks a turning point that could ease sectarian tensions and reduce proxy warfare.

The broader implications are significant. A united Saudi-Iranian front could stabilize energy markets, mitigate regional conflicts, and challenge the narrative that the Middle East is inherently divided. As global power structures shift, cooperation between these two influential players could form the bedrock of a new, more self-reliant regional order.

In a world where traditional alliances are in flux, the normalization of Saudi-Iran relations might be one of the most consequential diplomatic developments in recent memory.

Revealed Contents of King Salman’s Letter: A Strategic Overture

Days after this historic visit by a member of the ruling family in Saudi Arabia to Iran, more details are coming out about the content of the letter sent to iran's top official, Ayatollah Khamenei—information that sheds light on the depth and intent behind this diplomatic gesture.

According to news reports, the letter was received very positively by the Iranian leadership. Among the key points raised:

• Support for US-Iran Talks: King Salman voiced Saudi Arabia’s support for the ongoing US-Iran negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear program—an unexpected shift from the Kingdom’s prior opposition to the 2015 nuclear deal. He encouraged Iran to pursue a settlement that would enhance regional stability.
• Willingness to Facilitate Dialogue: The letter offered Saudi Arabia’s assistance in hosting informal meetings between Iranian and U.S. officials during former U.S. President Donald Trump’s upcoming visit to Riyadh. Iran declined the proposal, yet the gesture itself signals a new Saudi approach to facilitating regional diplomacy.
• Yemen and Regional De-escalation: The King urged Iran to use its influence over Yemen’s Ansarallah movement (the Houthis) to prevent attacks on Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and to lower tensions in the Red Sea—an area of growing strategic concern.
• Palestinian Statehood Commitment: King Salman reaffirmed Saudi Arabia’s longstanding position that it will not recognize Israel without the establishment of a fully independent and widely accepted Palestinian state—adding a clear note of continuity amid shifting geopolitical narratives, a shift perhaps resulting from the brutal war in Gaza.
• Proposal for a Security Pact: Perhaps most notably, the King expressed openness to a bilateral security pact with Iran, stating that concrete steps toward such an agreement would be pursued in the near future.
• This development comes against the backdrop of renewed U.S.-Iran indirect talks and a major regional tour by President Trump, who is scheduled to visit Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE from May 13 to 16. According to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, the purpose of the trip is to "strengthen ties" with regional allies. Trump’s visit will be his second international trip since returning to office, and it now intersects with rapidly evolving regional dynamics.

Media Review: Why does Trump Think Erdogan is a "Winner"? -- Analyzing Current Events in the Middle East

Media Review: Why does Trump Think Erdogan is a "Winner"? -- Analyzing Current Events in the Middle East

    Wednesday, April 09, 2025   No comments

Recent developments in the Middle East have raised significant concerns about Israel's national security, particularly in light of the shifting dynamics following the weakening of the Assad regime in Syria. This article explores how Israel's previous strategies may backfire, especially with Turkey's increasing involvement representing a new challenge for Israeli policy.

For years, Israel has maintained a complex relationship with Syria, often justifying its military actions by citing the Iranian presence in the region. The narrative framed Iran as a significant threat, allowing Israel to conduct operations with a degree of international acquiescence. However, the fall of the Assad regime, which Israel purportedly supported and even took credit for, may turn out to be a strategic miscalculation.

The vacuum left by the fall of Assad regime has not led to a straightforward advantage for Israel. Instead, it has opened the door for a more assertive Turkey, a NATO member, to expand its influence in Syria. This shift complicates Israel's security calculus, as Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan recently stated that while Turkey does not seek confrontations with Israel in Syria, Israel's actions could pave the way for future instability in the region.

Then, sitting next to Israel's prime minister, US president Trump said that Erdogan is a "winner". President Trump's comments about Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan reveal a startling acknowledgment of Turkey's growing role in Syria. Trump congratulated Erdoğan for effectively asserting control over Syrian territories through proxies.

Turkey's potential establishment of military bases in Syria poses a direct challenge to Israel's strategic interests. While Fidan noted that any agreements the new Syrian administration might pursue with Israel are its own business, the tension remains palpable. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has expressed concerns about Turkish military presence, indicating that Israel does not want Turkey using Syrian territory as a base against it.

Iran's Enhanced Position: A Trojan Horse

Contrary to Israel's previous assertions, Iran's capacity to operate in Syria is potentially more secure due to Turkey's involvement. The collaboration between Turkey and Iran could facilitate logistics and support in ways that were previously less feasible. This partnership undermines Israel's long-standing narrative of Iranian isolation, presenting a more unified front against Israeli interests.

Moreover, Turkey's criticisms of Israeli military actions—labeling them as genocidal and a violation of regional stability—highlight the precariousness of Israel's position. Turkish officials have condemned Israeli airstrikes on Syria, which they perceive as an infringement on Syrian sovereignty. This rhetoric 

Israel's national security strategy has relied heavily on maintaining a powerless Syria. A fragmented state is easier to control and less likely to pose a direct threat. However, with Turkey's burgeoning role in the region, Israel finds itself in a precarious position. Erdoğan's ambitions could lead to the establishment of Turkish military bases in Syria, effectively transforming the landscape into a more complex battleground for Israel.

The current events in the Middle East illustrate the intricacies of regional politics and the potential repercussions of Israel’s earlier strategic choices. The fall of the Assad regime, rather than serving as a victory for Israeli security, might lead to a more complicated and threatening environment.

Trump’s Perspective on Erdogan as a "Winner"

Trump's admiration for Erdogan can be traced to Turkey's significant role in the ongoing conflict in Syria. By supporting the Islamist-led coalition that ousted Bashar al-Assad, Erdogan has effectively increased Turkey's influence in a region historically dominated by various power struggles. Trump’s comments, such as congratulating Erdogan for "taking over Syria," highlight a recognition of Turkey's strategic gains. This acknowledgment reflects Trump's broader narrative of strength and success, often favoring leaders who exhibit assertive control over their territories and dominating weaker nations.

Moreover, Trump’s personal rapport with Erdogan is notable. By describing Erdogan as "very smart" and emphasizing their strong relationship, Trump positions himself as a potential mediator in the fraught dynamics between Turkey and Israel. This personal connection may enhance Trump's ability to navigate the delicate political waters of the Middle East, where alliances shift rapidly.

Erdogan’s achievements in Syria are significant. By backing opposition forces and securing a foothold in the region, Turkey has not only expanded its influence but also positioned itself as a key player in any future resolution of the Syrian crisis. However, the devastation wrought by over 11 years of war has left Syria in ruins, requiring an estimated $300 billion for reconstruction. This staggering cost presents a challenge for Turkey, as Erdogan does not have the financial resources to undertake such an extensive rebuilding effort.

Moreover, Turkey’s relationship with Iran and Russia complicates the situation. Erdogan has cultivated strong ties with both nations, enabling Turkey to leverage its relationships with the new Syrian leadership to gain economic benefits from Iran. This alignment stabilizes Iran’s influence in Syria, creating opportunities for Turkey to extract advantages from its connections with both Iran and its adversaries. Given Syria's geographical significance but economic liabilities, Erdogan's strategy may involve encouraging Gulf states and energy-rich nations, including Iran, to participate in rebuilding efforts.

Trump's offer to mediate between Erdogan and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is critical for several reasons. First, it illustrates the U.S. role as a central player in Middle Eastern diplomacy. By positioning himself as a mediator, Trump aims to stabilize relations between two countries that have historically been at odds, particularly regarding their respective approaches to the Syrian conflict.

Moreover, Trump's influence could potentially steer Erdogan towards a more conciliatory stance regarding Israel. 

While Trump’s relationship with Erdogan provides a unique opportunity for diplomatic engagement, the extent of his influence is debatable. Erdogan's actions are driven by Turkey's national interests, which may not always align with U.S. or Israeli objectives. For instance, Erdogan’s strong support for Hamas and his anti-Israel rhetoric complicate any straightforward mediation effort.

Furthermore, Erdogan's recent statements indicating a desire to avoid confrontation with Israel suggest a potential openness to dialogue, albeit cautious. 

Trump's perception of Erdogan as a "winner" reflects a broader acknowledgment of Turkey's strategic gains in Syria, especially through its relationships with Iran and Russia. Erdogan's successes, while beneficial for Turkey, also pose challenges to Israeli interests, making Trump’s proposed mediation a critical juncture in Middle Eastern diplomacy. As Syria emerges from devastation, the need for reconstruction creates a complex dynamic; Erdogan will likely seek Gulf states' participation, recognizing that any rebuilding effort will come with significant geopolitical strings attached. This transformative potential could reshape regional dynamics, with the outcomes of Erdogan's actions significantly impacting the future stability of Syria and the broader SWANA region.

Beijing Hosts Trilateral Meeting Between Iran, Russia, and China: Call for Ending Sanctions and Diplomatic Resolution of Nuclear Issue

Beijing Hosts Trilateral Meeting Between Iran, Russia, and China: Call for Ending Sanctions and Diplomatic Resolution of Nuclear Issue

    Friday, March 14, 2025   No comments

Beijing hosted a high-level trilateral meeting on Friday, bringing together deputy foreign ministers from Iran, Russia, and China to discuss Iran’s nuclear program and broader cooperation among the three nations. The meeting concluded with a joint statement emphasizing the necessity of lifting unilateral sanctions and advocating for political dialogue as the only viable solution to ongoing disputes.

The statement highlighted the need to end all illegal unilateral sanctions, stressing that diplomatic and political dialogue, based on mutual respect, remains the only effective and feasible approach to resolving tensions. Additionally, it called on all involved parties to address the root causes of the current situation and to refrain from sanctions, pressure, or threats of force.

The three nations also reiterated their commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), recognizing it as the cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. China and Russia welcomed Iran’s assurance of the peaceful nature of its nuclear program and its commitment to full compliance with NPT obligations and comprehensive safeguards agreements. Both countries reaffirmed their support for Iran’s continued cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and emphasized Iran’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

The meeting, held at Beijing’s Diaoyutai State Guesthouse, was attended by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu, and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Gharib Reza Abadi. Ryabkov reiterated the importance of respecting Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy and urged the avoidance of any actions that could escalate tensions in the Middle East. He stressed the need to create conditions conducive to a diplomatic resolution of the nuclear issue.

Beyond the nuclear discussions, the meeting also explored opportunities for enhanced collaboration within international organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and BRICS, underscoring the need to strengthen multilateral cooperation.

U.S. Sanctions and Iran’s Stance Against Pressure Tactics

The meeting in Beijing occurred against the backdrop of ongoing U.S. sanctions on Iran. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei reaffirmed that while Iran does not seek war, it will respond decisively if provoked by the United States or its allies. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian also asserted that Iran will not succumb to threats, clarifying that willingness to negotiate does not equate to submission.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reiterated on Thursday that Tehran will not engage in negotiations under maximum pressure, arguing that such talks would fail to meet Iran’s demands. Araghchi stated that Iran’s strategy in response to Washington’s pressure campaign is one of “maximum resistance.” He further emphasized that Iran would only enter direct negotiations with the U.S. if its national interests were guaranteed and discussions were conducted without threats or coercion.

Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei condemned U.S. efforts to disrupt Iran’s economic and trade activities, labeling them as clear violations of international law and free trade principles. Earlier, the U.S. government had announced new financial sanctions targeting an alleged international network accused of transferring Iranian oil to China to fund Tehran’s military activities.

Background: The Iran Nuclear Deal and Its Fallout

In 2015, Iran reached a nuclear agreement with the U.S., the UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China, which required Tehran to limit its nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. However, in May 2018, during the first term of President Donald Trump, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the agreement and reinstated sanctions on Iran. In response, Iran gradually reduced its commitments under the deal, including lifting restrictions on nuclear research and uranium enrichment.

As tensions persist, Iran, Russia, and China continue to push for a diplomatic approach, urging an end to economic sanctions and reaffirming their commitment to peaceful negotiations.

Qatari Emir, in Tehran, met Iranian officials: Importance of dialogue to resolve regional conflicts maintain regional stability

Qatari Emir, in Tehran, met Iranian officials: Importance of dialogue to resolve regional conflicts maintain regional stability

    Wednesday, February 19, 2025   No comments

Although the public statements seemed to emphasize the importance of the ceasefire in Gaza and need to rebuild Gaza and prevent its people from forced displacement, one must read between the lines to understand the role of Qatar in bridging the gap between Iranian leaders and the new leaders in Syria as being their top priority. The reason being Qatari deep connections to the armed group, HTS, which now control most of Syria. It is likely that Qatar will play a role in "normalizing the relationship to the extent that the Shia minority in Syria and the religious site revered by Shia Muslims are respected and protect. In return, Syrian leaders can expect Iran's help in helping speed up the rebuilding of state institutions that would be able to preserve Syria's territorial integrity. The coming days will determine how successful the Qataris in achieving this balancing act.

 

The Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, confirmed - in a press conference with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian - that he is visiting Tehran at a time when the region is witnessing challenges that require consultation and coordination, stressing that the best way to resolve conflicts is through constructive dialogue.

The Emir of Qatar said that he held talks with the Iranian President that included many areas of cooperation, stressing the importance of exploring potential opportunities for cooperation.

He explained that the recent visit of the Iranian President to the State of Qatar contributed to developing relations between the two countries, adding that dialogues and understandings support stability in the region and enhance the prosperity of its countries and peoples.

The Emir of Qatar stressed - in the joint press conference - the need to adhere to the ceasefire in Gaza and continue the flow of aid, and he also spoke with President Pezeshkian about the importance of the success of the comprehensive political process in Syria.

Maintaining Stability

In turn, the Iranian president said that he held consultations with the Emir of Qatar on the current developments in the region.

Pezeshkian thanked Doha for its efforts in the ceasefire negotiations in Gaza and the release of Palestinian prisoners, stressing that during this meeting he emphasized the unity of Syrian territory and the right of the Syrian people to self-determination.

The Iranian president said that he believes that the countries of the region can work to achieve stability and security in the region, adding that strengthening and expanding relations in all fields with the countries of the region is one of Tehran's basic policies.

Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad arrived in the capital Tehran on Wednesday on a visit accompanied by Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani and an official delegation.

The Emir of Qatar met with President Pezeshkian and senior Iranian officials to discuss bilateral relations, regional developments, and ways to maintain the security and stability of the region, according to the Qatar News Agency (QNA).

The Qatari agency stated that this visit "is of great interest in light of the current circumstances and developments in the region, and what they require in terms of intensifying consultations at the highest levels, and coordinating visions and positions towards various challenges."

Iran's President Pezeshkian in a press conference with the Emir of Qatar in Tehran: We respect Syria's sovereignty and territorial integrity

There is a convergence of views between Iran and our friend Qatar on regional issues.. The Islamic Republic believes that the countries of the region are capable of achieving security and stability in the region.. We respect the sovereignty of Syria and stressed the necessity of the participation of all segments of the Syrian people in determining its fate.. We appreciate Qatar's efforts in mediating to reach a ceasefire agreement in Gaza.. We believe that all governments and peoples must do their utmost to defend the rights of the Palestinian people

Israeli government committee: Turkey-backed Syria may pose greater threat than Iran

Israeli government committee: Turkey-backed Syria may pose greater threat than Iran

    Tuesday, January 07, 2025   No comments

An Israeli government committee said Monday that Turkey could pose a greater threat to Israel than Iran in Syria if it backs a hostile “Sunni Islamist” force in Damascus.

Ankara has emerged as a major beneficiary of the collapse of Bashar Assad’s government in Syria last month, following an offensive by rebels led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and other Turkish-backed Syrian groups.

Since then, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has pledged all forms of support, including military and security assistance, to help the new Syrian caretaker government establish public order in the country under the leadership of Ahmed al-Sharaa, also known by his nom de guerre Abu Mohammed al-Julani.

The “Committee to Evaluate the Defense Establishment Budget and Balance of Power,” headed by former National Security Council head Yaakov Nagel, is commonly referred to in Hebrew media as the Nagel Committee or the Nagel Committee.

The committee was established in 2023, before the outbreak of the Israeli war on Gaza, with the aim of making recommendations to the Defense Ministry on potential areas of conflict that Israel could face in the coming years.

The committee said that “the origins of the rebels and their leaders,” some of whom were previously associated with groups such as Al-Qaeda, should not be ignored.

For this reason, we must take into account that Israel may face a new threat emerging in Syria, which in some respects may be no less dangerous than the previous threat. This threat may take the form of a radical Sunni force that also refuses to recognize the existence of Israel,” the committee said.

Moreover, since the Sunni rebels will exercise political power by virtue of their central control in Syria, they may pose a greater threat than the Iranian threat, which has been limited by Israel’s continued actions, as well as the restrictions imposed on Iran by the sovereign Syrian state.

The committee warned that the problem could intensify if the Syrian force effectively becomes a proxy for Turkey, “as part of Turkey’s ambition to restore the Ottoman Empire to its former glory.”

We must prepare for war with Türkiye

Israeli media reported that a government committee recommended in its report to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, yesterday, Monday, to prepare for a possible war with Turkey, in light of growing concerns in Tel Aviv about Ankara’s alliance with the new administration in Damascus after the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime.

The Jerusalem Post quoted the committee’s report as proposing to increase the defense budget by up to NIS 15 billion ($4.1 billion) annually over the next five years, to ensure that Israeli forces are equipped to deal with the challenges posed by Turkey, as well as other regional threats.

The committee also recommended several measures to prepare for a possible confrontation with Turkey:

Advanced weapons: Acquiring additional F-15 fighter jets, refueling aircraft, drones and satellites to enhance Israel’s ability to carry out long-range strikes.

Air defense systems: Enhancing multi-layered air defense capabilities, including the Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow and the newly operational laser defense system.

Border security: Building a fortified security barrier along the Jordan Valley, which would represent a major shift in Israel’s defense strategy despite the potential diplomatic fallout with Jordan.

The Israeli Prime Minister's Office said in a statement on Monday that Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yisrael Katz, and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich had received the Nagel Committee's recommendations.

According to the statement, Netanyahu said, "We are in the midst of a fundamental change in the situation in the Middle East. We have known for years that Iran poses the greatest threat to us, both directly and through its proxies."

He continued, "Of course, we were keen to hit this axis hard. But we have seen the reality that: First, Iran is still there, and second, additional forces have entered the field, and we always need to be prepared for what may come."

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had warned - a few weeks before the Syrian armed opposition overthrew the regime of Bashar al-Assad - that Israeli military moves in Syria could pose a direct threat to Turkey's security on its southern border.

Islamic D-8: can this intergovernmental organization help stabilize Southwest Asia and North Africa?

Islamic D-8: can this intergovernmental organization help stabilize Southwest Asia and North Africa?

    Tuesday, December 17, 2024   No comments

Cairo will host the 11th edition of the D8 Summit on Thursday, 19-12-2024, which will discuss ways to confront successive global economic and political changes. The summit will be held under the slogan "Investing in Youth and Supporting Small and Medium Enterprises: Shaping Tomorrow's Economy."

Egypt chairs the current edition of the summit, having assumed the presidency of the group last May and will continue to lead its work until the end of next year.

Several summits and bilateral meetings are scheduled to be held on the sidelines of the D8 Summit in Cairo, whether at the level of presidents or delegations participating in the conference.

The meeting of the foreign ministers of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, Malaysia, and Bangladesh will be held tomorrow, Wednesday.

Several heads of state will be attending this summit this year, including Iran's president.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian plans to attend the summit of the Developing Eight (D8) Islamic countries in Egypt on Thursday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said Tuesday. This is the first visit by an Iranian president to Egypt in more than a decade.

Relations between Egypt and Iran have generally been tense in recent decades, but the two countries have intensified high-level diplomatic contacts since the Gaza war broke out last year, in which Egypt has tried to mediate. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi traveled to Egypt in October to discuss regional issues with Egyptian officials, and his Egyptian counterpart Badr Abdel Aty traveled to Tehran in July to attend Pezeshkian’s inauguration.

Indonesian president will attend D-8

Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto will travel to Egypt on Tuesday to attend meetings of a group of eight major Muslim nations known as the Developing Eight (D8) Economic Cooperation Organization, the government said.

Prabowo will attend meetings, including a D8 summit on Thursday, and accept the group’s chairmanship for a two-year term starting on Jan. 1, 2026, Foreign Ministry spokesman Roy Soemirat told reporters on Monday.

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan will participate tomorrow, Wednesday, in the 21st meeting of the G8 Foreign Ministers Council, which will be held in the Egyptian capital, Cairo, within the framework of the D8 Summit.

According to diplomatic sources in the Turkish Foreign Ministry, the meeting will address developments in the Palestinian Gaza Strip and other regional issues.

During the meeting, Fidan is expected to call for an immediate end to the genocide committed by Israel in Palestine and its measures aimed at turning the war into a regional conflict.

He is also expected to point out the importance of advancing efforts to implement the two-state solution in conjunction with reaching an immediate ceasefire.

Fidan will highlight the importance of providing urgent humanitarian aid to Gaza and increasing support for the efforts of the workers of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA).

The meeting of the Foreign Ministers Council comes within the framework of preparing for the summit hosted by Cairo next Thursday, with the participation of delegations from the group's countries: Turkey, Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia and Bangladesh.

The summit is scheduled to be held under the theme “Investing in Youth and Supporting SMEs: Shaping Tomorrow’s Economy.”

Attendance of the D-8 Summit in Cairo

The Indonesian government announced that President Prabowo Subianto will travel to Egypt today, Tuesday, to attend the group's meetings and the upcoming summit next Thursday, and will accept the group's presidency for a year.

In addition, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei announced that Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian will participate in the G8 Summit in Egypt.

The Pakistani Embassy in Cairo also confirmed that Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif will pay an official visit to Egypt from December 18 to 20 to participate in the summit's activities.

President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi handed the Lebanese caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati an invitation to participate in the summit's activities, as the Lebanese Prime Minister received the invitation from the Egyptian Ambassador Alaa Moussa, during his reception on December 9 at the Grand Serail.

The Middle East Eye website also reported that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will participate in the group's meeting and will hold meetings related to current developments in Syria.

About the D-8: the Developing Eight

The G8, also known as the Developing Eight, is a development cooperation system between the following member states: Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Turkey. This system also adds a new dimension aimed at strengthening economic relations and social ties among its members.

The G8 was officially established at the Summit of Heads of State and Government held in Istanbul on June 15, 1997 (Istanbul Declaration), following the "Cooperation for Development" Conference held on October 22, 1996 and a series of preparatory meetings.

The G8 aims to:

Improving the position of developing countries in the global economy.

Creating new opportunities in trade relations.

Enhancing the participation of developing countries in international decision-making.

Achieving better living standards.

The most important features of the G8:

It is a global system, not a regional one, as is clearly evident in its founding members.

Its membership is open to other developing countries that share the objectives and principles of the Group and are linked by common ties with it.

It is a forum that has no adverse effect on the bilateral and international obligations of its member states towards its membership and towards international organizations.