Why the United States should pursue a long-term agreement and security partnership with Iran

Look, the Middle East keeps being this expensive, messy headache for American foreign policy. It’s unstable, it drains resources, and it keeps dragging us into stuff that doesn’t really serve our big-picture interests. So Washington has a pretty straightforward choice right now: keep leaning on those small, super-dependent Gulf monarchies, or finally make the shift toward a long-term agreement and a gradual security partnership with Iran. I know it sounds politically crazy to a lot of people, but the Iran option is honestly more realistic, more sustainable, and way better for letting us focus on the one competition that actually matters — China.

For years we’ve built our whole regional strategy around these smaller Gulf states. They’ve been handy in some ways, sure. But they’ve got real limits. Small populations, not much land, and zero ability to protect themselves without us babysitting them with bases, ships, and constant crisis management. That setup means America is stuck paying the bill — money, troops, and political capital — for problems that aren’t even central to our security. And let’s be honest, some of these allies have made risky moves that pulled everyone deeper into long wars, like the one in Yemen that’s still grinding on.

The core problem? These states are security consumers, not producers. They can’t create or hold a stable order on their own. So the US ends up carrying the whole load while they sit back. That imbalance has been expensive and exhausting for decades, and it’s just not sustainable anymore.

Iran is a totally different animal. Big population, huge territory, and centuries of running a real state. It’s a genuine heavyweight in the region that can actually generate its own security and project power.

That changes everything. If we recalibrate the relationship, Iran could actually help lighten America’s burden instead of adding to it. Its reach in places like Iraq and Afghanistan means any lasting stability has to include Tehran — think tanks like the Carnegie Endowment have been pointing this out for a long time.

People love to paint Iran as purely crazy and ideological, but if you look at how it actually behaves, it’s usually pretty cold and calculating — weighing costs against benefits. Remember the JCPOA? When the deal was alive and the incentives were clear, Iran stuck to the rules (the IAEA tracked it closely: Yeah, the whole thing fell apart later, but the years it worked proved that real engagement is possible when both sides get something tangible.

The military option is the dangerous fantasy. A straight-up U.S.-Iran war would almost certainly blow up into a bigger regional mess. Iran’s missiles, its networks across the region, and its ability to threaten the Strait of Hormuz could spike oil prices overnight, choke global energy, and tank economies. We’ve seen this movie before in Iraq and Afghanistan — quick wins that turned into endless, expensive traps.

A long-term agreement, on the other hand, gives us an actual off-ramp. It opens the door to de-escalation, better ways to manage crises, and slow confidence-building steps. It doesn’t have to mean best friends or full diplomatic hugs. Even limited deals on specific issues could cut the risk of mistakes and free up a ton of U.S. bandwidth.

And then there’s the China angle — probably the strongest reason to do this. The Middle East is turning into a big playground for Chinese money and influence, especially through Belt and Road projects. Because we’ve kept Iran boxed out, Tehran has leaned hard into deals with Beijing. Continued hostility just hands China more leverage and strengthens an anti-American bloc. A smart agreement with Iran could break that pattern, pull Tehran back toward the global economy, and give it space to balance its foreign policy.

At the same time, it would let Washington ease some of its military and diplomatic load in the Gulf so we can actually prioritise the Indo-Pacific where the real long-term contest is happening.

Even a limited, quiet understanding between Washington and Tehran could help build a more stable setup. Iran’s size and position mean it could help keep local flare-ups in check while the U.S. moves to more of an offshore balancing role. It’s a shift away from fragile alliances and endless zero-sum games toward something more practical: deterrence where needed, de-escalation tools, and a shared interest in keeping the region from exploding.

Sure, the path is full of landmines — deep mistrust on both sides, domestic politics that make compromise hard, and pushback from neighbors who like things the way they are. But history shows old enemies can find practical ways forward when the incentives line up. Look at how the U.S. eventually normalized with Vietnam or opened up to China in the 1970s.

The realistic way in is to start small: targeted deals on concrete problems, quiet confidence-building moves, and steady diplomacy. Those pieces can grow over time.

At the end of the day, this isn’t about picking between a perfect world and disaster. It’s about choosing between a costly, overextended status quo that keeps failing and a tougher but far smarter path. Sticking with the small Gulf states just locks us into more instability and overstretch. A long-term agreement and gradual security partnership with Iran could lower tensions, cut costs, and finally let the U.S. focus on the defining challenge of this century — managing competition with China. In that bigger picture, engaging Iran isn’t some idealistic side project. It’s plain strategic common sense.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.