The new rules of engagement

The response by Gulf states to the Iran-Israel conflict may well decide the outcome of the crisis - but the Sunni monarchies face complicated choices about the region's future

- Patrick Wintour

IRAN’S MISSILE AND DRONE ATTACK ON ISRAEL had by the end of last week already become one of the most interpreted events in recent modern history. And then, in the early hours of last Friday, came Israel’s riposte. As in 1914, when Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife were assassinated in a moment that led to the First World War, these were shots that were heard around the world, even if few can agree conclusively on what they portend.

By one de minimis account, Tehran was merely sending a warning shot with its attack on 13 April. The maximalist version is that this was a state-on-state assault designed to change the rules of the Middle East. By this assessment, Iran was prepared to risk turning Israel into a mini-Dresden in 1945 and was only thwarted by Israeli strategic defences and, crucially, the extraordinary cooperation between the US, Israel and Sunni Gulf allies.

Whatever Iran’s intention, its assault and now Israel’s counter-attack have presented the Gulf states with dilemmas, according to Hugh Lovatt of the European Council on Foreign Relations. How they respond may determine the outcome of the crisis.

The key question is: do the Sunni monarchies led by Saudi Arabia fear Iran and its proxies more than they detest Israel and the damage it is inflicting on Palestinians and regional stability?

For the past six months that choice has been suppressed, as Iran and the Sunni states have forged a fragile united front. In January, Saudi Arabia ensured Iran had a seat at the table through a joint meeting of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Gulf Cooperation Council.