Helsinki Syndrome: Will a non-aggression pact be able to stabilize the Middle East

Saudi Arabia has initiated discussions on a fundamentally new security architecture in the Middle East. The Kingdom invited the countries of the region to conclude a non-aggression pact with Iran based on the Helsinki Accords of 1975. According to Western media, this initiative has already been supported in Europe. The Pact can dramatically change the balance of power in the region, but its implementation faces harsh political realities. Details can be found in the Izvestia article.

New format based on old patterns

Riyadh is discussing with its allies the possibility of concluding a non-aggression pact between the Middle Eastern capitals and Tehran after the end of the US-Israeli war against Iran, The Financial Times (FT) reports, citing Western diplomats.

The Helsinki Accords of 1975, which the USSR and its allies, as well as European countries, Canada and the United States concluded during the Cold War to reduce tensions, are considered as a possible model.

The agreements did not have the status of a legally binding treaty, but they became the basis for the creation of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, as well as one of the key elements of detente during the Cold War.

European countries, as the newspaper notes, have already supported the current initiative, believing that this format will help reduce the risk of a new war, as well as provide Tehran with security guarantees. The EU called on the Gulf states to join the discussion of this format.

Meanwhile, Arab states are worried about Iran's missile program and drones, as well as support for regional armed groups. FT, citing an Arab diplomat, reports that such a pact could be supported by the majority of Muslim and Arab states, as well as Iran itself.

"However, it all depends on who is involved in it — in the current situation, you will not be able to unite Iran and Israel. And without Israel, it can be counterproductive, because after Iran, it is seen as the largest source of conflict. But Iran is not going anywhere, and that is why the Saudis insist on this," the sources say.

However, the UAE, which has recently been increasingly strengthening relations with Israel and taking a rather tough stance towards Iran, is ready to join the agreements.

In addition, Riyadh simultaneously supports the mediation efforts of Islamabad, which is trying to reconcile Washington with Tehran.

At the same time, Saudi Arabia itself has recently experienced an escalation with Iran. The media reported on the kingdom's secret strikes on Iranian territory "in response to Tehran's attacks." The targets that were hit were not reported. However, after that, the parties began an active dialogue and agreed to reduce tensions.

Following in the footsteps of Helsinki

The choice of the Helsinki Accords model of the 1970s is not accidental. Back then, at the height of the cold War, the West and the East managed to work out a set of rules that did not eliminate ideological contradictions, but reduced the risk of a direct military clash through recognition of post-war borders, confidence-building measures and economic cooperation.

Saudi Arabia is obviously trying to replicate this very mechanism. The key idea is not to conclude a comprehensive peace with Iran, as this is currently impossible, but to create rules of the game to ensure that mutual strikes do not escalate into war. This implies recognition of spheres of influence and commitments to non-aggression.

European countries support this initiative because they see it as a way to protect themselves from migration crises and to obtain guarantees of energy security and navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. The idea is also supported by Turkey, Pakistan and Egypt, with which the Middle Eastern kingdom is building up a strategic partnership.

This initiative would be beneficial to Iran. Tehran, which has suffered serious losses in the war, needs guarantees that it will not be attacked again. In addition, the pact is in line with a long-standing Iranian concept: regional powers should resolve regional security issues themselves, without US interference. In addition, Tehran may perceive the pact as a legitimization of its status.

Insurmountable differences

However, there are a number of obstacles in the way of this pact. First, Israel's radical rejection of the idea. The country's authorities believe that the non-aggression agreement between the states of the region without the participation of West Jerusalem de facto frees Tehran's hands in other directions. It is impossible to include Israel in the same agreement with Iran in the context of a ground operation in Gaza and strikes on Lebanon.

Secondly, there is a serious split within the Arab camp itself, especially between Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Abu Dhabi takes a much tougher anti-Iranian position and criticizes the Arab world's insufficient reaction to Tehran's actions. The UAE intends to deepen its military alliance with Israel after the war, which directly contradicts the Saudi concept of a "reset" of relations with Iran.

In addition, the issue of compliance with such a pact raises questions, because currently even the obligations enshrined in international guarantees to respect sovereignty and non-use of force, and these are the basic principles of the Helsinki Accords, can be trampled upon by changing political conditions.

So the Saudi initiative is more of a declaration of intent and an attempt to probe the ground than a ready-made plan. The chances of implementing a full-fledged Helsinki 2.0 with the current level of distrust between the UAE and Iran, as well as with the absence of Israel at the negotiating table, tend to zero.

However, in a truncated format, such as an agreement on communication to prevent maritime incidents in the Persian Gulf or security guarantees for its monarchies, agreements are possible.

It is better to negotiate directly

Danila Krylov, a researcher at the Department of the Near and Post—Soviet East of the INION RAS, Candidate of Political Sciences, told Izvestia that he was very skeptical about the current initiative, as questions remained about who would be the guarantor of such transactions and monitor their implementation.

— Iran is a victim country. And the aggression came from Israel and the United States, Tehran did not fall on anyone, but only responded. The Israelis have supplied their Iron Dome air defense/missile defense systems to some Arab monarchies, and whether the Arabs have the moral right to accuse Iran of unprovoked aggression is debatable," the political scientist explained.

In addition, as the expert noted, multilateral agreements work very poorly in the Middle East. Therefore, the Helsinki Pact, in the version that was adopted in 1975, will not be valid at all in this case.

— Even if it is accepted through the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Persian Gulf (GCC), the League of Arab States, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation or some supranational organization, this work will not function. For effective functioning, plus or minus, it is necessary that the agreement be bilateral in a multilateral format," the expert believes.

The orientalist said that we are talking about agreements between the countries of the Middle East and Iran directly: separately Saudi Arabia, separately the UAE, separately Qatar, etc.

— But what happens if one of the pacts is violated, how will the GCC member countries react to this? This is a separate question that has no answer," Krylov said.

The analyst also drew particular attention to the fact that information about a possible pact following the example of the Helsinki Accords came with reference to Western diplomats.

— I would suggest waiting for a statement from Riyadh. In addition, the Saudis seem to be discussing this agreement to end the military operation of the United States and Israel against Iran. And no one knows what the end of the military operation is and when it will come," the political scientist noted.

He pointed out the need for Israel to join this pact in order for the agreements to work effectively, stressing that it is impossible to create an agreement in which Tehran and West Jerusalem will be on equal terms, with equal responsibility and equal fulfillment of obligations.

The United States and Israel will interfere

A non-aggression pact between Iran, Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries will not ensure security in the region, since the real sources of aggression are Israel and the United States, and their goals are different from those of the countries in the region, said Elena Panina, director of the RUSSTRAT Institute for International Political and Economic Strategies.

"Without these catalysts of war, such a pact would have been quite possible. Tehran will definitely raise the issue of the withdrawal of American and Israeli troops from the territories of the Middle East states. Given the limited sovereignty of these states, this is unlikely to be feasible," the political scientist is convinced.

In her opinion, Washington and West Jerusalem also have a scenario of extreme measures on the table — the demolition of the oil and gas infrastructure of the Persian Gulf. The United States and Israel are destroying Iran's oil and gas facilities, and in response, Iran is destroying facilities of its American and Israeli allies.

"Thus, the countries of the Middle East have become hostages of their own policy of rapprochement with the United States and Israel. Of course, they will be used, but they do not intend to take their interests into account," the specialist concluded.