Dr. Ali Rashid Al-Nuaimi, Chairman of the UAE Federal National Council’s Defence, Interior, and Foreign Affairs Committee, has published on his X account a searching and unflinching analysis of why the Iranian regime does not merely resist peace — but structurally depends upon its absence.

The Middle East today stands before overlapping geopolitical and security crises that continue to threaten regional and international stability, yet at the center of many of these tensions lies a deeper structural dilemma: a regime that has transformed distrust, instability, and ideological confrontation into instruments of governance and regional influence.

A Governing Doctrine of Ideological Expansion

The structural flaw of the Iranian leadership stems from its profound detachment from the interests and aspirations of its own people. The purpose of any modern state is to serve its citizens, strengthen national development, and build economic stability and prosperity. In Iran, however, the country’s wealth and national capabilities continue to be sacrificed on the altar of the “exporting the revolution” ideology.

This is not a policy deviation, but a governing doctrine that places ideological expansion above national development. Vast resources are directed toward ballistic programs, proxy militias, and regional interventions while millions of Iranians struggle under economic hardship, inflation, unemployment, and growing social frustration.

A Crisis of Legitimacy on Two Fronts

This deep separation between state priorities and public interests has generated a severe crisis of legitimacy and credibility on two interconnected fronts. Internally, the regime governs through suppression, intimidation, and systemic opacity toward its own population. Legitimate demands for reform, dignity, and opportunity are frequently met with coercion and violence, steadily eroding the regime’s moral and political legitimacy before its own people. A government that fears the aspirations of its citizens inevitably loses the foundations upon which durable legitimacy is built.

Externally, Tehran approaches diplomacy and international agreements not as pathways toward genuine coexistence, but as instruments of tactical maneuvering, strategic delay, and pressure management. Commitments are repeatedly undermined through covert channels, parallel activities, and continued regional interference, leaving diplomatic assurances devoid of lasting credibility or genuine commitment to stability. This pattern has produced a widening international trust deficit that cannot be repaired through rhetoric alone.

Instability as Strategic Necessity

A realistic assessment of the region confirms that a regime lacking domestic legitimacy cannot become a reliable partner in building regional security. The Iranian leadership has repeatedly demonstrated that its survival depends on maintaining internal repression and sustaining regional instability. In this sense, Iran’s external behavior is not separate from its domestic model; both are sustained by coercion, opacity, and confrontation.

The persistence of tension across the region is therefore not incidental, but closely linked to a political system that views instability as a strategic necessity rather than a danger to be avoided.

The Path Forward: Accountability and Collective Readiness

For this reason, the international community and regional states must move beyond political wishful thinking and abandon the repeated gamble on fragile understandings unsupported by accountability and enforceable guarantees. Safeguarding the stability of the Arabian Gulf requires a firm, deterrent, and highly vigilant strategic approach built on guarantees, accountability, and collective readiness.

Stability cannot be manufactured by those who lack credibility, and peace will not be achieved by compromising with a regime that views stability as an existential threat to its survival. Regional security must therefore be built on credible conduct, enforceable commitments, and a clear understanding that Gulf security is indivisible.