Imam Mohammad Tawhidi*
For 134 days, the region has been living through one of the most dangerous waves of escalation the Middle East has witnessed in years; a war ignited by the Iranian regime and then deliberately prolonged through deception, procrastination and aggression. Now the truce has collapsed once again, and this came as no surprise.
Tehran signs, then stalls, then escalates; and each time, it is the region that pays the price. This is not the behaviour of a state seeking a solution, nor the conduct of a party serious about negotiation. It is the way the Iranian regime has operated for decades: promises that are never honoured, agreements exploited merely to buy time, followed by a fresh round of threats and violence.
The memorandum of understanding signed in mid-June was supposed to open a 60-day window for negotiations. But before that period had even elapsed, Iran and the United States exchanged strikes in the gravest escalation since the agreement was signed; the third major violation in under a month.
The same scene repeats itself: signature, delay, then a strike delivered at the very moment the other side believes the door to de-escalation remains open.
Since the June ceasefire, the Iranian regime has moved to impose a new fait accompli in the Strait of Hormuz; forcing commercial vessels onto unlawful routes, levying exorbitant fees on them and treating one of the world's most vital maritime passages as though it were the private property of the Revolutionary Guard.
On July 6 and 7, Iran's proxies attacked three tankers, prompting an American response that was both expected and justified. Tehran then announced the creation of an entity it called the "Persian Gulf Strait Authority", demanding that ships pay up to $2 million for passage; in yuan, bitcoin, or USDT.
This is neither a political message nor a negotiating display. It is piracy in its fullest form; a regime extorting commercial shipping and imposing levies on international navigation, while demanding the world treat it as a partner in peace.
As for the terrorist Hezbollah, the Revolutionary Guard's regional arm, it took no time at all to expose the truth of Iran's position: it rejected even the limited, US-brokered ceasefire and attacked what was termed the "pilot zone" agreement.
When the regime's armed proxies reject an agreement mere hours after it is announced, it becomes impossible to separate what the Iranian diplomat says from what Tehran's militias do. Both operate within the same system, each playing its assigned role.
Meanwhile, Iranian officials continue issuing threats even in the midst of negotiations themselves; parliamentarians and security officials speaking of a "harsh slap" for the United States, as though negotiation were not a search for an exit but merely an opportunity to prepare the next blow.
The problem is not a misunderstanding, nor a rift between a "moderate" and a "hardline" faction, as some like to repeat. The problem runs far deeper than that.
The Iranian regime was founded on the notion of permanent revolution, treating confrontation with the West and with the Arab Gulf states as an inseparable part of its political identity. It did not build its network of militias for self-defence, but so that wars could be fought from beyond its borders; wars whose responsibility it could disown whenever convenient.
Hezbollah, the Houthis and the Iraqi militias are not groups that have slipped from Tehran's control. They are instruments purpose-built for precisely this function: so that Iran can sign an agreement with one hand while striking with the other.
Even as Iran's president was signing what were billed as peace agreements, Hezbollah was launching rockets at its neighbours within days of the war's outbreak. This was not a contradiction in Iranian policy; it was that policy's precise execution.
The regime speaks of de-escalation when it needs time, and threatens war when it feels it has regained the initiative. It seeks sanctions relief, then channels the funds and influence toward financing its militias. It casts itself as the aggrieved party while extorting ships, threatening states and dragging the region from one crisis to the next.
No sanctions relief, no signed agreement, no concession has ever managed to change this behaviour. The reason is simple: deception and confrontation are not a flaw within the regime; they are among the very reasons for its survival.
This is a regime that lives on chaos. It requires a permanent enemy, a permanent crisis, an endless war; because calm would expose its domestic failures, its corruption, its repression and its inability to offer its own people any genuine model of governance.
The United Arab Emirates, by contrast, has followed an entirely different path. It has maintained a clear defensive posture, drawn into confrontation only when its own territory and security have been directly threatened; and the same holds true for its fellow Gulf states.
These countries do not derive their legitimacy from exporting revolution, nor do they need perpetual war to justify their existence. They enter confrontation only when it is forced upon them, not because they view chaos as a permanent state project.
The UAE has built a genuine economy, opened its doors to trade and investment, forged relationships grounded in mutual interest and commitment and earned an international reputation as a state whose word can be trusted.
Such a model cannot survive amid closed seas, threatened vessels, unrestrained militias and agreements not worth the ink they were written with. The UAE needs stability because it is building. The Iranian regime needs chaos because it knows no other way to survive.
When the region needs a partner that honours its word and understands the meaning of commitment, Abu Dhabi's record speaks for itself. Tehran, by contrast, has nothing to show but a long list of broken promises, collapsed truces, targeted ships and nations that have paid the price for trusting it.
This week's lesson is not new, but it has never been clearer: no agreement signed by a regime that treats agreements as mere pauses before the next round holds any value. Tehran does not negotiate in good faith. It infiltrates, delays, extorts then strikes. The region ignored Abu Dhabi's warnings for too long and paid the price.
The wise leadership in the capital, Abu Dhabi, should have been heeded from the outset. Now, the time has come to stop giving the mullahs new opportunities to play the same game, and to stand instead with the nations that want genuine security, a prosperous economy and a future not ruled by militias.
*The writer is Parliamentary Adviser and Research Partner with TRENDS Research & Advisory