Iran and the collapse of the trade-for-peace theory

European countries, after the Second World War, came to a painful but profound conclusion: if they wanted to stop centuries of bloodletting among themselves, they had to make war materially irrational.

The answer they found was not idealism alone, but interdependence. Trade. Shared markets. Shared interests.

Over time, that logic helped give birth to what became the European Union. As the EU notes in its official history of postwar integration, the European Coal and Steel Community was created so that no single country could build the weapons of war against the others as in the past.

Established by the Treaty of Paris in 1951, it became a foundational step in Europe’s long march toward integration. The theory was simple. Countries that are deeply tied to one another economically are less likely to destroy each other militarily.

For a time, some in the Middle East believed a version of that logic could eventually apply to Iran.

The argument was always that commerce could moderate Tehran. That trade, investment, business links, and human ties would slowly pull the Iranian regime toward a more rational regional posture. If not friendship, then at least restraint. If not trust, then predictability.

That theory now lies in ruins.

The Iranian regime has shown the region and the world that it does not behave like a normal state guided by economic self-interest, strategic patience, or even basic logic.

One of the clearest examples is the UAE. The very country Iran targeted most aggressively is also its second biggest trading partner in the world after China. Bilateral trade has been put at around $27 billion.

This is not a marginal relationship. It is central. And it goes beyond trade statistics. Dubai alone has long been home to roughly 400,000 Iranians, while thousands of Iranian traders and firms have operated there for years.

Older but widely cited estimates put the number of Iranian companies and trading firms registered in Dubai at around 8,000. That is not just commerce. That is social depth, human depth, and economic depth.

An Emirati official recently described the UAE as the lung through which Iran breathed when sanctions suffocated it. The phrase is harsh, but it is not inaccurate. And yet, even that was not enough to restrain Tehran.

On a side note, the UAE deserves credit for its defense readiness and professionalism in intercepting 95 percent of the Iranian attacks, and the same goes for all GCC countries.

That is the point many still fail to grasp. Iran did not simply attack an adversary. It struck at one of the very environments that had made its own survival easier. It undermined one of the few regional relationships that continued to offer it trade, access, connectivity, and room to maneuver.

In doing so, it sent a chilling message to every capital in the Gulf and beyond: no amount of economic engagement can guarantee rational conduct from this regime.

This is why the old argument that trade can tame Iran has suffered a devastating blow. Iran’s behavior suggests that its economy, development, trade, and long-term prosperity rank very low on its hierarchy of priorities.

Ideology and revolutionary impulse still dominate. This is also why Tehran appears so full of contradictions. It is not only in conflict with the world. In many ways, it is in conflict with itself.

The Iranian regime has shown the region and the world that it does not behave like a normal state guided by economic self-interest, strategic patience, or even basic logic.

Salman Al-Ansari

Iranian officials now talk about the need for the region to review its security relations after the war. They signal, directly or indirectly, that American bases should not remain in the Gulf. But this argument collapses under its own contradictions.

GCC states committed not to allow offensive operations from their airspace or territory. Saudi Arabia, for example, was attacked despite not hosting a single American base.

What it has are defense partnerships, military training relationships, and routine cooperation with friendly countries to help intercept missiles and drones. That is called self-defense, not aggression.

So Tehran’s message is both dishonest and revealing. The damage Iran has done is therefore not only military or diplomatic. It is reputational, strategic, and long term. Trust has been shattered, perhaps for years.

And once a state proves that even deep trade ties, business dependence, and large expatriate communities are not enough to moderate its conduct, regional countries will draw the obvious conclusion: this is not a regime that can be safely banked on, accommodated, or read through normal state behavior.

Europe built peace through interdependence because its states ultimately chose reason over impulse. Iran has just reminded the Middle East that it has chosen the opposite.

• Salman Al-Ansari is a Saudi geopolitical researcher and frequent guest on CNN, BBC, and France 24. Ranked the most influential political pundit in the Middle East in 2021 by Arab News.

X: @salansar1