As soon as the 34th Gulf summit meeting ended last week, a great debate broke out on achievements and the lack of them during the last 34 years or so since the creation of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) as a regional entity. Foremost is the debate on the capability of GCC to meet the threat presumably by its large neighbour on the West, that is Iran. The issue was dominant even before the summit. Recently, I attended a number of meetings and seminars in different cities of the GCC and the topic that was discussed broadly was the impact of the accord recently struck between Iran and the US, which came into being a few weeks ago in Geneva. The Gulf intellectuals are divided on the issue. In my judgement, among the two groups, the minority group thinks that this deal is beneficial to all parties, including the GCC countries, and is likely to bring peace and prosperity to the region. They don’t lack evidence to prove their point of view. The other group, which consists of the majority, whom I meet and listen to, thinks that the deal has a negative impact on GCC countries. They think that the deal between Iran and the US — although it is initially for six months, testing Tehran’s ability to deliver a good behaviour and build trust so to speak — is, in fact, a long-term accord — and may even be permanent. The argument goes to say that both parties would not have agreed to it unless it was sustainable and both needed it for their domestic politics in Tehran and Washington.

So, the six-month time frame may well be renewed for a longer period and considering that the accord will be good for political marketing in Teheran and Washington, there must be a hidden deal between the two parties — which was reached not in Geneva but in Muscat during the long secret negotiations that preceded the Geneva talks. This is why some opinions tend to talk of a hidden agenda that we do not know of as yet. They compare the recent negotiations with the other nuclear negotiations that took place between North Korea and the western powers some years ago, which involved neighbouring Japan and South Korea. However, on the Iranian nuclear issue, the neighbours, mainly the GCC countries, were excluded. So they are wary of the deal, which was probably reached behind their back, threatening their own vital interests.

The heightened Iranian diplomacy in the Gulf has made sceptics even more suspicious. The Iranian Foreign Minister, Mohammad Jawed Zarif, published a long article aimed at Arab Gulf readers, in a leading international paper. He suggested, among other things, that the western powers in the Gulf region should be withdrawn and a new pact should be put in place between the six GCC countries plus Iraq and Iran! Bearing in mind the Iranian influence on the Iraqi government, which is well documented, the suggestion meant a sort of Iranian hegemony over the smaller Gulf states. Moreover, he goes to say in this article that it is hard to live in a region where the distribution of wealth is off balance! Readers and commentators in local press were inflamed by this article and immediately reacted negatively to the ideas that Zarif was propagating, coming immediately after the accord was signed in Geneva. It triggered more suspicion. Soon, the Iranian foreign minister visited a number of Gulf capitals, preaching good neighbourhood and affection, while, at the same time, Tehran was supporting the atrocities being committed by the Bashar Al Assad regime on fellow Arabs.

Some sort of federation

The intention of Tehran is highly suspect because the foreign minister, on his Gulf tour, failed to visit Manama, where the influence of Tehran on the local political scene is highly visible. It is a well-known fact that the balance of power between Tehran and GCC countries favoured the former, not militarily but sentimentally, as Tehran has the advantage that it can look to certain Gulf communities over the shoulder of the state — something no Arab Gulf country can do that vis-a-vis Tehran. This advantage, which has been used in Iraq, Lebanon and to an extent in Syria and Yemen, could be repeated in the Gulf if the Iranian preachers were let off guard. The only guard was and still is a united policy within GCC countries.

The West has been quick to take the lead to calm Gulf concerns. The American Secretary of Defence, Chuck Hagel, confirmed US commitment towards the Gulf, as did the British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, recently. But there is still a school of thought among Gulf scholars and commentators who feel that we have to look after our own interests and move from cooperation to some sort of federation, safeguarding our long-term national interests and pulling out the thorns from our hands. This idea has been resisted in some quarters. Like any good idea, it will not be accepted before it is digested. In the aftermath of the 34th GCC summit in Kuwait the issue of unity was delayed for a later date. So while it may be back to the drawing room again but for some, it is much-needed and immediate, as the challenges facing the region are unprecedented.

Mohammad Alrumaihi is a professor of Political Sociology at Kuwait University.