Iran and its scorpions

Some of history’s greatest tragedies are not caused by a lack of allies, but by the inability to keep them. An old West Asian fable tells of a scorpion trapped on the bank of a river. Desperate to survive, it persuades a frog to carry it across, promising not to sting. “Why would I?” the scorpion asks. “If I sting you, we both perish.” Halfway across, however, the scorpion does exactly that. As both fall towards their deaths, the frog asks why not use logic. The answer is chillingly simple: “It is my nature; this has nothing to do with logic.”
Whether folklore or allegory, the story survives because it captures a recurring pattern in international relations. Powerful players within states sometimes pursue policies that damage not only their adversaries but also those trying to maintain constructive neighbourly relations with them. Iran's powerful players’ regional strategy increasingly risks becoming such a story.
During the recent US-Zionist military aggression against Iran, the countries that worked hardest to prevent a wider regional war were not Tehran’s military partners but its Arab neighbours who have for decades pursued a peaceful, non-confrontation policy with their neighbour. Yet Tehran fell into the trap perfectly set by its enemies to divide, conquer and sink our region into violent chaos, for the illogical intent of continuing to build a fanatical greater colonial genocidal entity. The Sultanate of Oman continued its long-standing role as a trusted intermediary, preserving channels of communication between Washington and Tehran. Qatar remained engaged in mediation efforts across multiple regional crises. Other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) consistently called for de-escalation and a diplomatic resolution rather than military escalation.
These efforts were not acts of alignment with one side against another. They reflected a recognition that another regional war would produce no winners. Yet while facing unprecedented external military pressure, Tehran’s political discourse and the actions of many groups aligned with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) continued to fuel regional mistrust. Decades of proxy conflicts, particularly in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, alongside recurring sectarian rhetoric, have left hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of bitter refugees holding decades of grudges. Many Gulf societies that stand by freedom fighters for justice have been questioning Iran’s long-term regional intentions, just as our region’s adversaries and enemies of humanity intended.
From a strategic perspective, this is difficult to understand. Iran’s neighbours are permanent. Geography cannot be sanctioned or relocated. The Arabian Gulf is one of the world’s most economically vital regions, with approximately one-fifth of global oil consumption transiting the Strait of Hormuz each day. Any instability immediately affects global energy markets, shipping costs, inflation and food security far beyond the Middle East. In such an environment, trust becomes a strategic asset.
One lesson I learned from my late brother, Colonel Anwar al Huraibi, one of the region’s foremost scholars of psychological warfare, is that successful psychological operations (PsyOps) depend on three conditions: a credible threat, an isolated target and a message that resonates with the target’s own population. Against the GCC, none of these conditions is fully present.
The Gulf states are not isolated. They are among the world’s most connected diplomatic actors. Oman has served as a trusted intermediary for decades, facilitating the secret negotiations that contributed to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and continuing to host indirect US-Iran discussions. Qatar has mediated between rivals ranging from the US and the Taliban to Israel and Hamas. The UAE has facilitated thousands of prisoner exchanges between Russia and Ukraine. Saudi Arabia hosted the first direct US-Russia talks since the war in Ukraine began. Kuwait continues to rank among the world’s most generous humanitarian donors relative to its size. Collectively, these countries have invested decades in becoming indispensable diplomatic bridges.
Threatening or alienating such actors is strategically counterproductive. It is the equivalent of setting fire to the bridge you still need to cross. History consistently shows that coercion has limits. Military power can destroy infrastructure. Economic sanctions can constrain economies. Psychological pressure can influence decision-making. But none of these instruments can easily replace trust once it has been lost.
That is why successful middle powers increasingly compete through credibility rather than coercion. The GCC’s growing international relevance is rooted not only in its energy resources but also in its ability to maintain dialogue with rivals who refuse to speak directly to one another.
Iran possesses extraordinary strategic advantages of its own. It is the heir to one of the world’s oldest civilisations, home to one of the most generous, skillful and highly intellectual people I have ever met. Not to mention Iran’s significant scientific capabilities and immense natural resources. These strengths could make it one of the principal architects of regional stability and prosperity.
That opportunity remains available and it requires replacing the logic of perpetual confrontation with the logic of strategic partnership. Nations are not prisoners of instinct. Unlike the scorpion of folklore, states possess the ability to learn, adapt and redefine their behaviour.
Our region has accumulated enough rubble. Its future will be built by those who preserve bridges, not by those who burn them. For in geopolitics, as in the old fable, you have only one job; sting your enemy not your friends.