A tale of three presidents

It is often said that the first casualty of war is truth. On Wednesday, in a post on Truth Social, US President Donald Trump suggested the war with Iran may soon be over, while also threatening to send Tehran “back to the stone age.”

That same day, in a letter addressed to the American people, his Iranian counterpart, Masoud Pezeshkian, said Iran is not, and never has been, a threat to the US — but then threatened to strike back “beyond Iran’s borders.”

Needless to say, President Pezeshkian has lost credibility since his March 7 statement, in which he apologized for attacking Iran’s Gulf neighbors, only for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to double down on those attacks.

These included drone and missile strikes on Saudi Arabia, which had signed — in good faith — the Beijing Declaration with Iran in 2023 and, from the outset, refused to allow its airspace or territory to be used for attacks on Iran.

They also included Oman, which does not host US bases and had even attempted to negotiate on Tehran’s behalf to help prevent further conflict — negotiations that Pezeshkian later suggested were sabotaged by a predetermined decision to strike Iran regardless of the outcome.

“Iran pursued negotiations, reached an agreement and fulfilled all its commitments,” Pezeshkian said in his April 1 letter.

“The decision to withdraw from that agreement, escalate toward confrontation and launch two acts of aggression in the midst of negotiations were destructive choices made by the US government — choices that served the delusions of a foreign aggressor.”

Pezeshkian repeated the familiar narrative that regional countries should not allow their territory to host US military bases if they genuinely want to focus on development.

This is contradicted by several IRGC actions and statements, such as the one that “all universities of the occupying entity (Israel) and American universities in West Asia will be considered legitimate targets.”

His claim that Iran has never been a threat to the US is also false.

This was rebutted by President Trump, who correctly cited a number of past Iranian actions, including those carried out by Iranian proxies responsible for the 1983 killing of 241 Americans in the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut.

They were also involved in the killing of hundreds of American service members in Iraq through roadside bombs. Iran, of course, was a major supporter of Hamas, which carried out the terrorist attacks of Oct. 7, 2023, in Israel.

President Trump was also right to warn that Iran’s relentless pursuit of a nuclear weapon would pose a threat to the entire world. Several experts have suggested that one of the reasons the Omani-led negotiations collapsed at the end of February was Iran’s inexplicable insistence on uranium enrichment.

Framing it as a sovereign right, Tehran insisted it would only accept certain enrichment levels and rejected American proposals for alternatives. It also dismissed the argument that enrichment is unnecessary for a peaceful nuclear program — which the regime claims to seek.

Given the scale of destruction in Iran, including the bombing of schoolchildren, heritage sites and infrastructure, one must ask: Was clinging to enrichment worth it? Or could the regime have averted catastrophe for itself, its people and the region by offering this simple reassurance?

The Iranian president would argue, as he did in his letter, that the outcome was predetermined anyway. Yet no one has convincingly explained why enrichment was treated as nonnegotiable.

Here it is worth recalling a third president, Barack Obama, who was also mentioned in President Trump’s address on Wednesday night.

“And then, very importantly, I terminated Barack Hussein Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, a disaster. Obama gave them $1.7 billion in cash,” said Trump.

Because text without context becomes pretext, it is important to note that President Trump was referring to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA — often called the Iran nuclear deal.

It was a landmark 2015 agreement finalized between Iran and the P5+1 group — comprising the US, UK, France, Russia, China and Germany — along with the EU.

Under its terms, Iran committed to dismantling much of its nuclear infrastructure, cutting uranium enrichment by two-thirds for 15 years and opening its facilities to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, in exchange for sanctions relief.

Critics of the JCPOA argued that it empowered Iran economically without curbing its regional aggression or missile program. The deal began to unravel when the US withdrew in 2018 under President Trump.

Having covered that period extensively, I would argue that much of what we are seeing today might have been avoided had the Obama administration heeded the advice of Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies.

The deal itself was flawed, containing loopholes such as sunset clauses and provisions allowing Iran to limit where inspectors could access nuclear sites.

This is a significant economic blow. However, the cost of allowing the Iranian regime to retain the capability to harm its neighbors — through missiles, drones, or militias — would be far greater.

Faisal J. Abbas

More troublingly, the Obama administration failed to address its allies’ legitimate concerns regarding Iran’s ballistic missile program, its militias and its expansionist strategy — one that saw it boast of influence over four Arab capitals.

In that context, the $1.7 billion payment only added fuel to the fire — a reality not felt in Washington but deeply felt across the region. Wherever Iran intervened, directly or through proxies, the result was often destruction.

To understand the extent of this, consider how Lebanon might look today without Hezbollah, Yemen without the Houthis, or Iraq without Asaib Ahl Al-Haq, Kataib Hezbollah and Kataib Sayyid Al-Shuhada.

The funds released under Obama were not used to build infrastructure or cities. Instead, Iran doubled down on its ballistic missile program and likely expanded its drone capabilities.

Shortly before leaving office, Obama famously told The Atlantic magazine that Saudi Arabia and Iran must learn to share the region.

“The competition between the Saudis and the Iranians — which has helped to feed proxy wars and chaos in Syria and Iraq and Yemen — requires us to say to our friends as well as to the Iranians that they need to find an effective way to share the neighborhood and institute some sort of cold peace,” he said, as if encapsulating the short-sightedness of what came to be known as the Obama doctrine.

And what followed? When Saudi Arabia and Iran signed the Beijing Declaration in 2023 — committing to nonaggression and refraining from using their territory against one another — some of the same voices urging regional coexistence criticized Riyadh for acting in its own strategic interest.

The thinking at the time was clear: if the Iranian regime wished to remain anchored in 1979, so be it — as long as it did not obstruct others from moving toward grander visions for 2030.

Until a month ago, that agreement held. But the Iranian regime has now shown it does not respect bilateral or international commitments, effectively betraying that agreement. Notably, Saudi Arabia has yet to respond in kind, although the agreement could be considered frozen from a Saudi perspective if it wished to.

The war has also revealed a striking contradiction. While Iran has long labeled Israel the “little Satan” and the US the “big Satan,” its actions suggest it views neighboring Gulf states as the “greatest Satan.”

Otherwise, why were 83 percent of its drone and missile strikes directed at GCC countries, compared to just 17 percent at Israel — the state that actually declared war?

For those familiar with the regime’s behavior over the past 47 years, this may not be surprising. But it bears repeating for those who continue to portray Iran solely as a victim.

President Trump is right to thank GCC countries for their resilience, and his pledge to support them is welcome.

“I want to thank our allies in the Middle East: Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait and Bahrain,” he said in his April 1 address. “They’ve been great, and we will not let them get hurt or fail in any way, shape or form.”

He has also criticized NATO allies and other major powers for failing to support efforts to keep the Strait of Hormuz open — despite the global consequences of disruption.

About 20 percent of global oil consumption — roughly 20 million barrels per day — and between 20 and 25 percent of global LNG trade passes through the Strait of Hormuz.

At the risk of repetition, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have long warned of the importance of maritime security in both the Red Sea and the Gulf. The world’s energy supply cannot be held hostage in this way again.

A March 30 report by the UN Development Programme estimated that the US-Israel war with Iran could cost Arab states between $120 billion and $194 billion in lost gross domestic product growth — equivalent to 3.7 to 6 percent of their combined output.

This is a significant economic blow. However, the cost of allowing the Iranian regime to retain the capability to harm its neighbors — through missiles, drones or militias — would be far greater.

There is some hope that now rests on the Pakistani-led effort, particularly if it secures Chinese backing, to reach a negotiated outcome that ensures such a crisis is never repeated.

In all cases, if a negotiated solution is not found the alternative is a prolonged and costly war — though one that is inevitable.

• Faisal J. Abbas is the editor-in-chief of Arab News. X: @FaisalJAbbas