For more than three weeks, clashes between protesters and security forces have been continuing in Iran. Protests that began with economically based demands quickly took on an anti-system character and have now become something discussed entirely within a political and security framework. Of course, Iran’s domestic political issues have rarely been isolated from foreign policy. The possible regional geopolitical outcomes of these actions, such as the protesters’ foreign political connections and the on-the-ground presence of the U.S. and Israel, which they make no effort to conceal, are of considerable importance for the region.

Oct. 7, 2023, has now become a historical moment that signifies the reconfiguration of the regional equation. Israel’s destructive actions represent a fundamental challenge to the region’s search for stability and security. Today, compared to the early phases of the Abraham Accords process, a rigid anti-Israel atmosphere prevails in the region. When one looks at the wreckage of collapsed states such as Libya, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, it is an anti-Israel stance guided by this frightening picture that alarms regional powers.

In Iran, it is not only protesters and security forces who are clashing in the protests. Through them, different geopolitical regional visions are also colliding. And regional countries are positioning themselves accordingly. Major regional actors such as Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman and Egypt are making their own calculations in the face of events in Iran and are adopting positions that protect state interests, primarily in the name of security.

Regional geopolitical change

The Arab Spring was the last significant rupture that transformed regional geopolitics before Oct. 7. This tectonic shift, which affected the Middle East and North Africa, opened the door to a configuration that made Iran advantageous in many geographies across the region, including Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen. This situation framed Iran as a revisionist source of instability for regional states such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain, and opened the door to many direct and indirect tensions. The regional alignment against Iran reached its peak during Donald Trump’s first presidency in the U.S.

However, especially in the post-COVID-19 period, the possibility of a new regional landscape began to emerge. Trump's maximum pressure policy against Iran, combined with the economic effects of the pandemic and domestic unrest, added to its regional losses and began to place pressure on its foreign policy preferences. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia and other regional countries did not receive the political and security support they expected from the U.S. during President Joe Biden's era. The failure of initiatives such as the Qatar blockade in 2017 began to strain the foreign policy choices of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt, just as it did Iran. In addition, the Russia-Ukraine war increased global uncertainties and brought the urgent need for stability to the fore.

As a result, Iran and Saudi Arabia saw taking a step toward normalizing relations in 2023 as the most reasonable option for themselves. In parallel, relations between Iran and Egypt also entered a path of normalization. Türkiye likewise normalized its relations with Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt. In the face of an external world that appears uncertain, insecure, and chaotic, this orientation toward internal stability and security cooperation is not surprising. Moreover, at the center of all these processes, the geopolitical shock created by Oct. 7 ensured that peace and security emerged as non-deferrable agendas.

Regional realignment after Oct. 7

After Oct. 7, there is no longer any doubt that Israel is the most important source of regional instability. What Israel has done is not only one of the heaviest and most inhumane genocides in history. At the same time, through its attacks on Lebanon, Syria and Iran, it is putting all regional security at risk. As Israel strikes Iran and Iran responds, aircraft pass through the airspace of many countries, sometimes even third countries become targets, such as Qatar, which is affected by both Iranian and Israeli attacks, and tensions continue to escalate sharply.

It is also evident that Israel, coded as a source of instability and insecurity, has had a hand in many of the recent ruptures in the region. The genocide in Sudan, Somaliland’s so-called declaration of independence, and most recently the attacks by Yemen’s Southern Transitional Council (STC) are the result of Israel’s calculations regarding the Red Sea, Bab al-Mandeb and the Horn of Africa. In addition, Israel’s attacks in Syria point to a similar pattern. Israel does not want political structures in the region that are territorially intact, institutionally functional, with secure borders and political stability.

In contrast, Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt prioritize stability and security in the region and need state structures to function effectively. To this end, these countries, especially Türkiye, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have made investments aimed at increasing Syria’s institutional capacity and ensuring its security. They have taken similar positions against developments in Sudan and Somaliland. Iran is also aligned with Türkiye and Saudi Arabia on the issues of Sudan and Somaliland.

Saudi Arabia’s air operations in recent weeks have dealt a serious blow to Israel’s plans over Yemen. The attacks by the STC, which emerged as an attempt to block the ongoing resolution talks between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis, also posed a strategic threat to Saudi Arabia’s security. Saudi Arabia’s decision to respond militarily without delay to this development, which also created tension between the UAE and Saudi Arabia, was in fact a response to Israel’s Horn of Africa strategy. The Türkiye-Saudi Arabia-Pakistan defense agreement that has come onto the agenda in recent days is likewise a response to similar geopolitical challenges.

Geopolitical meaning of Iran protests

The question of what kind of support Reza Pahlavi, presented by the segments of Western media as the leader of the protesters in Iran or as Iran’s potential future leader, actually has inside Iran is a subject for a separate evaluation. However, Pahlavi’s close relations with Israel, his open support for the genocide in Gaza, his support for Israel’s attacks during the 12 Day War, and demonstrations by his supporters carrying Israeli flags reveal a certain political logic. Israel situates the protests in Iran within its broader regional calculations. Some media outlets do not even consider Pahlavi a sufficiently good option and openly advocate the fragmentation of Iran along ethnic lines.

So, given the Israeli backing of the Iranian protests, how did regional countries position themselves while the protests continued in Iran? Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, in a television program he attended, referred to Israeli plans behind the protests in Iran while acknowledging the existence of Iran’s own internal problems. In addition, Iranian sources stated that Turkish intelligence provided support to Iranian authorities against terrorist groups such as the PJAK. Oman’s Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Hamad al-Busaidi visited Tehran. Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi discussed the development of bilateral relations over the phone.

The silence of Arab countries, especially Gulf monarchies, in the face of social unrest is understandable. Ultimately, they fear the repetition of a similar scenario in their own countries. Another reason is the fear of becoming a direct target of Iran. However, when one recalls Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s statement months before the 2017 protests in Iran, "We will work so that the battle is on their side, inside Iran, not in Saudi Arabia,” it should be recognized that today’s situation is the result of a major change.

In the region, almost no one other than Israel wants to see a collapsed Iran. The crises and security costs that such a collapse would produce are beyond what anyone could bear. What the region currently needs is stability and security. The regional silence regarding the Iranian protests and the implicit support for Iran should be interpreted within this framework.