On Saturday, it seemed war was beginning to de-escalate, albeit for a fleeting moment.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said his country’s interim leadership council had asked its armed forces to refrain from attacking the Gulf states, as long as their airspace and the US bases they host are not used by Washington to carry out strikes against Iran.
Mr Pezeshkian also apologised for Tehran’s sustained assault on the Gulf states since its war with the US and Israel began on February 28. It has so far launched more than 500 ballistic missiles and over 2,000 drones on military and civilian targets as well as airports and energy installations in the Gulf.
But if Mr Pezeshkian’s apparently dovish remarks provided a sense of some logic returning to Tehran and cautious optimism to those living in the Gulf, it was short-lived as Iran resumed its strikes almost immediately thereafter – proving once again that in the Islamic Republic, a president’s words and a commander’s orders are not always the same thing.
Last week, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi described his country’s military posture as a “mosaic defence” doctrine – a decentralised strategy in which various armed actors within the regime operate with considerable independence and recklessness. While the doctrine is designed to ensure resilience, it also means that no single official in Tehran can reliably switch aggression on or off. In other words, the strikes that followed Mr Pezeshkian’s remarks are less a contradiction than a structural feature.
Another attribute of the Iranian state is that both constitutionally and practically, the president has seldom called the shots, especially on military matters. For example, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, one of Iran’s two armed forces, operates somewhat independently and according to a different calculus.
When Speaker of Parliament Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf contradicted Mr Pezeshkian on Saturday – posting on social media that no regional country “would know peace” while US bases remained nearby – he was essentially reminding the world that the Islamic Republic speaks in multiple, often competing voices. Mr Pezeshkian, it’s worth noting, was forced to backtrack on his apology after an internal backlash.
The events of Saturday present two challenges for the region. The first pertains to communication. In the fog of war, the clarity of signals between warring parties can be the difference between escalation and de-escalation. At the moment, there is little clarity from either Iran or Israel on the direction of the current conflict.
The second problem concerns legitimacy. A week after Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed in US-Israeli air strikes, it’s unclear who really governs the country today. There has been no announcement of a new supreme leader and questions abound over potential disagreements within Iran. The confusion over command and control as well as the gap between political voices, such as those of Mr Pezeshkian, and hardline military action deepen uncertainty and complicate diplomatic engagement.
For the Gulf states having to live with so much uncertainty, clear, steady leadership at home is of paramount importance. This is precisely what UAE President Sheikh Mohamed offered through his measured but firm response to the past week’s developments.
In a visible gesture of solidarity with those affected, he visited a hospital to meet survivors of Iran’s attacks on Saturday. While there, he pledged to protect his country’s people, regardless of background, saying: “The UAE has thick skin and bitter flesh – we are no easy prey.”
Amid external hostilities, such reassurance – backed by decisive and timely action – will go a long way in keeping people safe and their spirits strong.
