Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
GULF CRISIS

Monday Commentary: The war nobody wanted, but that may end up harming everybody

16 March 2026
Dennis Sammut

The war nobody wanted, but that may end up harming everybody

The war of the United States and Israel against Iran has entered its third week. Not a very long time, some would say, but enough already to have changed the Middle East, not in any good way. As the BBC veteran Security Correspondent, Frank Gardner, put it, the war has put a shadow over the whole region.

Nobody, except for Benjamin Netanyahu, wanted this war, not even Donald Trump. The war, unless it is stopped quickly, may end up harming everybody.

The way out is clear: De-escalate, negotiate, and rebuild. But as of today, the prospect for that appears distant.

The Gulf countries caught in the middle

The six GCC countries – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Kuwait, and Oman have been caught in the middle. Up to a point. They all house US bases, and the relationship of most of them with the Shia Islamic regime that has ruled Iran since 1979 has never been easy. They supported Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in its long war with Iran in the 1980s; they hoped that their friendship and military arrangements with the US would deter Iran, which it probably did. But they wanted to avoid a full war. Oman and Qatar mediated between Iran and the US until the last moment. The GCC countries were vulnerable, and the last 17 days have shown their vulnerability starkly. Even if there is a quick ceasefire, and this is far from certain, the image that they have nurtured, with great effort and at huge expense, over the last decade has been shattered.

Iran

Iran has been subjected to the heaviest aerial bombardment in history. Its leadership has been killed. Yet it has, so far, shown remarkable resilience. The Islamic Republic endures because it is a homegrown system that has been under siege for forty-five years. It has dug in and prepared for this day. In Iran, there are those who consider the regime of the mullahs as despicable. But across the country and its ninety million population, the regime reflects society, and many Iranians see the war with the US and Israel as a confrontation with the devil. Those in Washington trying to understand Iran from their own narrow Western logic are confused and keep waiting for the regime to collapse. When it does not happen, they are disappointed.

The United States

Donald Trump did not want this war. He was persuaded that it was possible, by a fast, strong, and sharp operation, to bring about regime change. What we have seen unfolding before our eyes, and it continues, is mission creep on a scale not seen before. There is a chance this war will break Trump, but we are not there yet.

Israel

This is the first time Israel and the US are waging war together. The short and long-term implications of this have yet to be fully understood.  Netanyahu can justifiably be proud that he was able to persuade Trump to join the attack on Iran. But Israel cannot economically sustain a full war for long. The next time Netanyahu meets Trump, he will not be asking for bombs, but for money. He may find Donald Trump less obliging.

Everyone else

Where does that leave everyone else? Not in a good place. Europe has once more been sidelined, left to pick up the pieces from the disruption in energy. There are some short-term gains for Russia, but in the end, they will be negatively impacted too. China has, by and large, kept cool and aloof. It has six months of oil and gas reserves, which insulate it from an immediate crisis. But a prolonged crises will impact China too.

De-escalate! Negotiate! Rebuild!

The only way out of the present crises is first through de-escalation. A ceasefire may not be possible for weeks, but using diplomatic back channels, the US and Iran may agree to de-escalate,  or to put it more crudely, stop shooting.

It will be up to Trump to ensure that Netanyahu stops shooting, too.

Once de-escalation happens, the difficult process of negotiations can start again, focusing on the nuclear file and picking up from where discussions were left on 27 February.

This is an agreement within reach – a non-nuclear Iran in return for the lifting of sanctions. Other possibilities are possible, and once a ceasefire is agreed, the EU and China can also be involved in the discussions.

Finally, a process of rebuilding must start. The GCC have the money to do the reconstruction of infrastructure quickly. Reputational damage to their Shangri-La image will take longer.

Rebuilding Iran will be more challenging, given the scale of the destruction, and will require more money than Tehran has. Even as the bombs continue to fall, this issue needs to be considered.

In the end, no one really wanted this war, and no one is going to benefit from it. It must be brought to an end as soon as possible, but the thinking of what happens after must start now.

source: Monday Commentary is written weekly for commonspace.eu by Dr Dennis Sammut, Director of LINKS Europe and Managing Editor of commonspace.eu

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?
Trending

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026
Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Dennis Sammut

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest
Trending

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

7 September 2026
Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”
Trending

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

21 September 2026
There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)
Dennis Sammut