Why Pezeshkian is Wrong About Muslim Unity and the Gulf

Every time a regional leader stands at a podium and preaches Muslim unity to counter Western interference, diplomats cheer, journalists nod, and policy analysts write predictable columns about shifting alliances. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian recently trotted out this exact playbook, accusing the United States and Israel of trying to wedge Gulf nations away from Tehran under the banner of regional defense.

It sounds tidy. It fits the classic geopolitical narrative of the oppressed east uniting against the meddling west.

It is also completely disconnected from how modern power actually operates in the Persian Gulf.

I have spent the last fifteen years watching foreign policy experts fall into the same lazy consensus: the belief that shared religion or geographic proximity automatically overrides state survival instincts. It does not. Pezeshkian wants everyone to believe that the primary tension in the Middle East is an ideological crusade engineered by Washington and Jerusalem. That framing completely ignores the self-inflicted wounds of Iran’s own foreign policy and the rational economic self-interest of Gulf monarchies like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar.

Let us dismantle the myth.

The Geography of Fear Versus The Rhetoric of Brotherhood

The core argument driving the Pezeshkian narrative is simple: if Muslim nations just hold hands, external actors lose their leverage.

The premise fails because the Gulf states are not worried about abstract Western imperialism nearly as much as they are worried about concrete regional hegemony. When a neighboring power funds proxy militias, develops ballistic missile programs, and threatens shipping lanes, theology takes a back seat to survival.

To understand why Gulf capitals ignore Tehran's calls for anti-Western solidarity, you have to look at the mechanics of statecraft through a realist lens. Realism in international relations teaches us that states prioritize security above all else. When Saudi Arabia or the UAE look across the Gulf, they do not see a misunderstood brother offering an alliance of faiths. They see a historical rival that spent decades exporting revolutionary ideology designed to destabilize monarchies.

Blaming the United States and Israel for turning Gulf nations against Iran is a convenient diplomatic cop-out. It lets Tehran avoid asking the harder question: Why do our neighbors prefer security umbrellas from Washington over partnerships with us?

The answer has nothing to do with Western mind-control and everything to do with risk management.

The Economic Reality Check

Let us look at the financial incentives driving Gulf state behavior.

Vision 2030 in Saudi Arabia and similar diversification blueprints across the region require massive foreign direct investment, technological integration, and stable global supply chains. These economies are anchored to the dollar, tied to Western capital markets, and heavily reliant on international trade security.

When Pezeshkian pitches Muslim unity, what is the economic value proposition? Trade with Iran is heavily constrained by international sanctions, plagued by banking complications, and dwarfed by the commerce these nations conduct with the West and Asia.

Imagine a scenario where Riyadh completely aligns its foreign policy with Tehran's anti-Western axis. Foreign capital flees the Gulf overnight. Tech giants pull their regional headquarters out of Dubai. Mega-projects stall for lack of insurance and investment backing. Gulf leaders are many things, but they are not economically suicidal. They understand that ideological solidarity does not pay for desalination plants or artificial intelligence infrastructure.

The lazy consensus assumes that culture and religion are the primary drivers of state behavior in the Islamic world. History proves otherwise. From the Iran-Iraq War to the rivalries within the Arab League, nationalism and state interests have consistently crushed pan-Islamic dreams.

The Security Paradox

Security architecture in the Middle East is currently undergoing a silent, pragmatic transformation. The Abraham Accords and ongoing quiet security coordination between Gulf states and Israel are not evidence of a sinister plot to enslave the region. They are the logical outcome of a vacuum left by shifting American priorities and a shared threat perception regarding conventional and asymmetric aggression.

When Iran claims that Israel is poisoning relations between Tehran and its neighbors, it reverses cause and effect. The normalization of ties between Arab states and Israel did not happen in a vacuum. It accelerated because Gulf capitals calculated that partnering with a technologically advanced state with shared security concerns offered a better hedge against regional instability than trusting verbal assurances from a hostile neighbor.

If Tehran genuinely wants to decouple the Gulf from Western influence, the solution is not complaining about American diplomacy. The solution is changing behavior.

1. Cease Proxy Warfare: No amount of rhetoric can overcome the reality of armed groups launching drones and missiles across borders.
2. Normalize Economic Transparency: Build trade frameworks that do not require skirting international sanctions or operating through opaque financial networks.
3. Respect State Sovereignty: Treat smaller neighbors as independent actors rather than spheres of influence to be subverted.

Until those shifts happen, accusing Washington and Jerusalem of driving a wedge is just political theater designed for domestic consumption.

The Cost of Bad Analysis

Why does this matter beyond the beltway of geopolitical commentary? Because lazy analysis leads to catastrophic policy failures.

When Western analysts buy into the narrative that Gulf nations are mere puppets being manipulated by outside powers, they misread local agency. The leaders in Abu Dhabi, Riyadh, Doha, and Manama are sharp, calculating pragmatists. They play multiple boards simultaneously. They talk to Tehran when it suits them, buy defense systems from Washington, invest in China, and trade with Europe.

They are not being "turned against" anyone. They are looking out for number one.

Pezeshkian knows this, or at least his foreign ministry does. But admitting that Iranian miscalculation alienated the neighborhood requires a level of introspection that revolutionary states rarely manage. It is far easier to blame the Great Satan and the Zionist entity than to admit that your regional strategy has driven your neighbors into the arms of your rivals.

Stop buying the brotherhood narrative. Look at the balance sheet, measure the security threats, and watch what regional powers actually do when the cameras are off.

The next time a leader pitches pan-Islamic unity against a common foe, check who is funding the militias next door. That will tell you everything you need to know about why the neighborhood refuses to unite.