|
ANALYSIS
"Washington should pledge to respond to any military attack against its Gulf partners—whether by Iran or any other adversary—with military force. It should follow that pledge with a more formal commitment to multilateral security by establishing a political–military consultative mechanism and a joint command structure, and finally a legally binding collective defense treaty," write Bilal Y. Saab and Barry Pavel in Foreign Affairs.
"As the GCC states become more independent, the United States will not always like the solutions they come up with to deal with regional security issues, such as the ongoing civil war in Yemen or whatever crisis might arise next. At times, U.S. officials will need to seek difficult compromises. But in most circumstances Gulf state ownership of their problems—and the solutions—will lead to better outcomes than American-led efforts, particularly military intervention," write Jeremy Shapiro and Richard Sokolsky in Foreign Policy.
"But while many are optimistic over a final deal—coming with a change in Iran's attitude and behavior—many are preparing for the post-agreement consequences. And any unexpected turn of events, such as Iran engaging further in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, or Lebanon, could jeopardise the past several years of diplomatic talks, held in good faith, and transform the region into the roaring furnace of the worst conflict the world has yet known," writes Camelia Entekhabifard in Al Jazeera.
|
