FOR the past 46 years, a great country like Iran has been trapped in the bottle of “exporting the revolution.” Iran has remained bound to this rigid vision since the Middle Ages, despite several popular uprisings that have been brutally suppressed by the Revolutionary Guard, an institution widely seen by Iranians as a “state within a state.” For more than four decades, the Iranian people have been asking these questions:
What have we gained from severed ties with our neighbors?
Why is our national wealth wasted on regional sectarian militias?
Has this approach brought us prosperity, improved our economy, or uplifted the lives of our citizens?
Or has it only deepened our poverty?

Today, nearly 80 percent of Iranians live below the poverty line, while the mullahs and the influential continue to thrive on the wealth plundered from the poor. While these questions continue to be repeated throughout Iran, it has become increasingly evident that Iran’s grip over four Arab capitals is merely an illusion. The Syrian uprising against the former regime was the first nail in the coffin of Iranian hegemony. This was followed by Hezbollah’s defeat in Lebanon. Meanwhile, Iraq continues to move forward with its reconstruction process and control of sectarian militias. As for Yemen, it is increasingly clear that approximately four percent of the population cannot maintain control over 39 million people. Signs of a potential uprising against the Houthis are beginning to emerge throughout the country.

The Iranian regime has yet to learn from the harsh lessons of history, which have repeatedly proven that no sect can dominate a nation indefinitely. Sooner or later, the people will rise against the oppressors. India, with its population of 1.4 billion people, embraces a remarkable diversity. It is home to 180 religions and speakers of 350 languages, yet it upholds the principle of equality for all. Despite Hinduism being the dominant faith, it has neither imposed its control over the entire population nor pursued a policy of exporting its religious ideology to the world. Today, Iran finds itself trapped in a prison cell due to regional and international developments. The country has two options: pursue a diplomatic solution through direct negotiations with the United States, which is the world’s leading power, or head down a path that leads to hell. Empty rhetoric of strength and arrogance no longer carries weight. The global community remains firm in confronting Iranian-backed terrorism, leading to a growing blockade and increasing restrictions on Iranian citizens, including entry bans to many countries.

As a result, the Iranian economy has suffered massive losses, and the hardship faced by ordinary citizens has worsened. Hence, the regime was forced to yield, and went to the Omani capital, Muscat, in a bid to avoid drinking from the “bitter cup.” Although this isn’t the first time, today’s circumstances are markedly different. If former U.S. President Barack Obama paved the way for expanding Iran’s regional infl uence, the current President Donald Trump has taken a starkly different approach, making it clear that he will not tolerate any Iranian threat to Middle Eastern countries. His administration’s priority is to establish strong economic and political partnerships with the countries of the It is true that the Gulf states, and the Arab world as a whole, have been cautious when dealing with Iran. However, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) has extended its hand to Iran more than once, expressing a desire to restore ties to the level seen during the era of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

That period was marked by economic and industrial cooperation, as well as strong relations at the popular level. However, Tehran rejected all these efforts and chose to pursue a difficult path, which only led to greater tension. The countries of the region are now dealing with the recent developments with a sense of realism, grounded in the understanding that the Arabian Gulf basin is the backbone of global economic stability. Such stability, however, can only be achieved if the mullah’s regime abandons its unrealistic projects. Therefore, regardless of whether the negotiations in Muscat are direct or indirect, the path to a solution begins with the capitals close to Tehran. If Iran truly seeks progress and stability, it must abandon its project of “exporting the sectarian revolution” and instead work on reaching an agreement with its neighbors.