On 13 and 14 May, the leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) gathered at the White House and Camp David at the invitation of the US President Barack Obama. Prior to the US-Gulf summit, the US president had met with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and his deputy at the White House. The two led the Saudi delegation to the summit. King Salman, the Saudi monarch, was monitoring developments in the Yemeni crisis. At least, this is the explanation offered by the Saudi side for his absence at Camp David. The US-Gulf summit took place in a very fluid strategic environment in the Middle East and the Gulf, where alliances are more tactical than strategic, more ad-hoc rather than well-founded on long-term interests. Fear of the future was the driver behind this summit. Fear on the part of GCC member countries vis-à-vis Iran post-30 June, if the P5+1 and Iran turn their Framework Agreement of 2 April into a final accord on the Iranian nuclear programme, predominated. The fact of the matter is that this summit was proposed by President Obama after the signing of the Framework Agreement to assure GCC countries that their strategic partnership with the United States would not be endangered by the deal. From a Gulf point of view, the summit was about reaffirmation on the part of the United States of its security commitments towards the GCC. However, the American side, while recognising the need to allay fears, did not send the wrong message to the Iranians that Washington is playing a double game. And this is the reason why American officials went to great lengths to underscore that the US-Gulf summit was not country-specific, in other words it won't be teaming up against Iran in the future. Given the wording of the official statement that followed the summit, I am not sure the Iranians will be convinced that their future relations with both the Americans and Gulf Arabs will be smooth sailing. The statement has an annex that is more explicit on areas and steps to be covered and taken to enhance the strategic partnership between the two sides. The statement says that the United States “is prepared to work jointly with GCC states to deter and confront an external threat to any GCC state's territorial integrity that is inconsistent with the United Nations Charter.” And it goes on to point out that, “in the event of such aggression or the threat of such aggression, the United States stands ready to work with our GCC partners to determine urgently what action may be appropriate... including the potential use of military force, for the defence of our GCC partners.” These are words that will not be well received nor well interpreted in Tehran. The annex to the statement has enumerated the areas to be covered by the enhanced strategic partnership between the United States and GCC member states, and they include enhanced cooperation in the fields of security and defence. It talks about security assurances, ballistic missile defence, military exercises and training partnership and, finally, arms transfers. It is a very ambitious programme that could give rise to an arms race in the Gulf and the whole Middle East. But President Obama made it clear that both Washington and the GCC want to engage Iran, whether there is a final agreement or not concerning the Iranian nuclear file. In this regard, the US president, in an interview on 13 May with Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, a Saudi paper published in London, while speaking of Iran as a state sponsoring terrorism also said that Iran could opt to cooperate and be integrated into the community of nations. From the point of view of both the United States and the member states in the GCC, the Camp David Summit could be considered a success in the context of their evolving strategic cooperation in a region that has been destabilised by more than four years of insecurity, and shifting alliances to cater for short-term interests, a situation that has been, unfortunately, instrumentalised by terrorist groups to expand geographically across the Arab world threatening the state itself and the legitimacy of all the region's governments. I doubt that the summit dealt with this overarching threat to the future security and stability of the Middle East. Iran could be a threat from the point of view of some governments, but it is not an existential threat. Terrorists have become an existential threat and the most serious challenge faced by Middle Eastern countries today. If not met and defeated decisively, I am not sure enhanced strategic partnerships like the one that we have seen at Camp David will be enough to face that grave threat. One final comment before concluding. Before the summit, the Arab Summit at Sharm El-Sheikh at the end of March dealt with the proposal of organising a joint Arab force to fight terrorist groups. It is doubtful that such a force will see the light soon. Too bad. The writer is former assistant to the Egyptian foreign minister.
