MADRID – On Saturday, October 11, the publication of classified U.S. military documents by The Washington Post revealed a crucial aspect for understanding the current security dynamics in West Asia. Despite the high tensions that characterize the region and the public expressions of opposition to Israeli military operations in Gaza from many Arab states, a discreet network of military cooperation has emerged. 

Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates have maintained a strategic dialogue with Israel, facilitated by the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), aimed at addressing what they perceive as a common Iranian threat.

To accurately interpret this regional realignment, it is essential to move beyond simplistic dichotomies. The policies of Persian Gulf Arab states and other neighboring countries are shaped by multiple complex variables: energy security, vulnerability to military escalation, dependence on external allies, and cross-border economic projects. 

These factors drive strategies of balance and diplomatic ambiguity. Yet, this relative autonomy has not prevented Tel Aviv from conducting a coordinated campaign to contain—and, where possible, reverse—any political or strategic rapprochement in the region.

The Israeli campaign: Diplomacy, intelligence, and coercion

Israel’s strategy operates on three complementary levels. First, public and corridor diplomacy: political pressure and lobbying aimed at shaping perceptions and preserving security alliances that discourage independent normalization. Persian Gulf states have sought to balance their ties with Washington and Tel Aviv while maintaining channels of communication with Tehran, aware of the systemic risk posed by an open confrontation.

Second, intelligence operations and covert actions: the use of clandestine operations, cyberattacks, and targeted strikes aims to undermine Iran’s political and coercive capacities, sending deterrent signals to third parties considering closer ties with Tehran. These practices have clear political effects, raising both the reputational and material costs of any rapprochement.

Third, military coercion and force demonstration: direct attacks or credible threats alter the strategic calculations of states seeking stability and development. Israeli military interventions have reshaped the regional decision-making space, pushing some governments toward more cautious stances regarding initiatives that might be perceived as rapprochement with Tehran.

From an Iranian perspective, these dynamics require a realistic analysis. It is not a question of ignoring Israel’s influence or issuing grandiose proclamations, but of recognizing that the region is a board with multiple vectors of power, and that Israeli maneuvers aim to close off spaces for regional autonomy. 

Iran’s response combines diplomatic prudence—leveraging internal political fissures and offering credible incentives—with deterrence capacity to limit the effectiveness of containment campaigns. In this way, the strategic ambiguity of Arab states can transform into opportunities for cooperation that strengthen regional stability and autonomy.

Since 2022, the so-called “Regional Security Construction”—the coordinated defense network involving Israeli and Arab officers—has taken shape at strategic bases like Al-Udeid in Qatar, under U.S. supervision. These spaces facilitate the design of joint air defense systems, intelligence-sharing mechanisms, and operational countermeasures to neutralize missile and drone attacks. The focus of these plans is the containment of Iranian military capabilities and those of its allies, from Hezbollah to forces in Yemen.

However, this security architecture, presented as a “tactical shield” against a common threat, is far from being a cohesive structure entirely dependent on Israel. Its actual functioning exists within a broader political field, where national calculations, internal rivalries, and strategic prudence compel each country to preserve its margins of autonomy, even when external pressures constrain independent action. The Arab governments involved, aware of the risks of direct confrontation with Iran, seek to maintain open channels that allow them to manage tensions without relinquishing diplomatic sovereignty.

In this sense, rather than a disciplined bloc under Israel’s aegis, the network reflects a flexible, fluctuating coalition sustained by an unstable balance between divergent interests. While Israel seeks to turn it into an instrument to consolidate its regional primacy and isolate Tehran, many of its Arab partners interpret it as a temporary containment mechanism, a way to gain time and political space while exploring coexistence formulas with Iran. The apparent solidity of this alliance thus conceals a constant tension between dependency and autonomy, between tactical calculation and the pursuit of a more sustainable regional balance.

The paradox dominating the current geopolitical landscape—publicly condemning Israel while maintaining covert military coordination—reflects not only the ambivalence of several Arab governments but also the limits of Israel’s project to fragment the regional front and isolate Iran. In an environment where immediate threats outweigh ideological discourses, security becomes the argument used to justify collaboration that ultimately responds more to external pressure than to a genuine convergence of interests.

Arab states that formally condemn Israeli offensives in Gaza on international platforms simultaneously participate in discreet networks of military cooperation and intelligence exchange. These connections, promoted under U.S. mediation and framed under the narrative of “Iranian containment,” operate as ambiguous spaces: they allow minimal coordination but do not translate into an organic alliance or a shared vision of regional order. Israel seeks to consolidate them as a pillar of its supremacy, but many Arab interlocutors continue to value stability and balance, aware that no security equation can endure while excluding Iran.

Far from being a contradiction, this coexistence of condemnation and cooperation embodies a dual-level policy: Arab governments aim to preserve internal legitimacy with societies sensitive to Palestine while managing pressures from Washington and Tel Aviv. Iran, rather than responding with hostility, interprets this ambivalence as an opportunity to deepen indirect communication channels and promote a framework of autonomous regional security based on interdependence rather than subordination.

The airstrike in Qatar: An alarm for the alliance

In September 2025, the apparent solidity of the alliance was revealed to be fragile when Israel carried out an airstrike in Doha without prior coordination with the host state, targeting positions linked to Hamas. The action was perceived regionally as a flagrant violation of Qatari sovereignty and a reminder that the security architecture led by Tel Aviv does not operate on principles of trust but under a logic of imposition.

Qatar’s reaction and the limited response capacity of the shared military systems exposed the structural weaknesses of a network designed more to serve Israeli interests than to ensure collective security. Netanyahu was forced to issue formal apologies—a maneuver driven from Washington to contain the crisis—but the political damage had already occurred. This episode confirmed that the regional alliance designed by Israel is vulnerable not due to technical capacity but because of its lack of political legitimacy and the persistent margins of autonomy that Tehran can still capitalize on.

In response to these dynamics, Iran does not remain on the sidelines. Its articulate and long-reaching diplomacy seeks to build pragmatic alliances with various Arab states, promoting a network of cooperation that challenges the Israeli and U.S. logic of containment. Tehran develops a balancing strategy, aware that regional stability depends on the ability of states themselves to define their interests without external tutelage.

This effort extends beyond political or logistical support to aligned actors; it encompasses a broader agenda centered on sovereignty, shared security, and autonomous cooperation. In response to Israeli campaigns, Iran engages in active diplomacy, leveraging the independence margins of its neighbors to foster ties that move beyond a perpetual confrontation logic.

Thus, Tehran presents itself not only as a pole of resistance but as a strategic interlocutor capable of negotiation and regional projection, emphasizing that Arab countries maintain agency and are not satellites of Tel Aviv.

U.S. interests and CENTCOM mediation

The United States, a central axis of this Israeli-favored regional architecture, operates through CENTCOM to facilitate operational and technological collaboration among Persian Gulf states and other allies. Its goal is to limit Tehran’s influence and ensure the integrity of energy routes vital to the global economy.

However, this mediation also reveals the limits of Arab states’ autonomy, forced to balance the ostensible defense of sovereignty with dependence on Washington. In this context, their posture is pragmatic: they align with U.S. and Israeli logic on a case-by-case basis while preserving the possibility—and in practice, exercising—dialogue and cooperation with Iran, demonstrating that the region is not fully subordinated to external interests.

Despite the construction of this strategic alliance, sociopolitical differences impose clear limits. Open criticism of Israel, reinforced by a public sensitive to the Palestinian cause, requires that these relations be maintained discreetly and carefully managed, highlighting the fragility of Israel’s regional cohesion project.

The Qatar incident confirms that trust, even when strategic, remains conditioned by historical legacies, narrative disputes, and the internal political vulnerabilities of each state. This complexity demands a flexible reading that recognizes the simultaneous coexistence of tactical alliances and opposing sentiments, underscoring Iran’s role as a stabilizing actor and mediator against the logic of external subordination.

West Asia emerges as a space of multidimensional tensions, where rivalries and interests converge and diverge simultaneously. Iranian diplomacy persists in its mission to offer regional reforms based on autonomy and sovereignty in the face of external forces and dominant hegemonies, proposing a pragmatic and stable framework that contrasts with Israel’s securitized vision.

Israel, for its part, seeks strategic opportunities with various Arab states, but it faces clear limits: these countries define their priorities and structure political relations according to national and regional interests that do not always align with Tel Aviv’s agenda. The multiplicity of actors, divergent interests, and constantly recalibrating relations require an analysis that goes beyond simplification, recognizing Iran’s central role in constructing a more autonomous regional balance.

The region’s future will depend on the ability of its actors to translate these complexities into genuine, sustainable negotiation processes. Moving beyond simplistic views and engaging with the reality of multiple voices will be key to creating conditions for peaceful coexistence and effective cooperation, grounded in autonomy and sovereignty.

Recent developments show that no actor can maneuver in isolation, and even covert alliances, driven by Israeli and U.S. containment logic, highlight the urgent need for parallel, strategic dialogue. From Iran’s perspective, lasting stability can only be built through inclusion, shared security frameworks, and respect for the agency of regional states.