Riyadh's Diplomatic Adaptation of the Helsinki Accords to Ease Tensions with Iran

TEHRAN (Defapress) - Saudi Arabia has begun discussions on a new security architecture in the region. Riyadh has proposed that regional countries sign a non-aggression pact with Iran based on the 1975 Helsinki Accords. According to Western media, the initiative has already received support in Europe. Although the pact could change the balance of power in the region, its implementation faces harsh political realities.

According to the Financial Times, Riyadh is discussing with its allies the possibility of concluding a non-aggression pact between regional capitals and Tehran after the end of Iran’s regional war.

The possible model Riyadh is considering is the 1975 Helsinki Accords, which were signed by the Soviet Union, its allies, as well as European countries, Canada, and the United States during the Cold War to reduce tensions.

Although these agreements did not have the status of a legally binding treaty, they became the basis for the creation of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and one of the key elements of the Cold War de-escalation.

According to the Financial Times, European countries have supported the initiative, believing that this format will help reduce the risk of a new war and provide security guarantees to Tehran. The European Union has called on the Gulf Cooperation Council countries to join the discussion on this format.

An Arab diplomat told the Financial Times that such a pact could be supported by most Islamic and Arab countries, as well as Iran itself. However, as the newspaper’s sources point out, everything depends on the participants. In the current situation, it is impossible to bring Iran and the Zionist regime together, and the plan without Israel’s participation may backfire.

Even the Emirates, which has recently strengthened its relations with Israel and adopted a relatively tough stance towards Iran, is ready to join the agreement.

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

Saudi Arabia seems to be trying to reproduce exactly this mechanism. The key idea of ​​​​the agreement is not to conclude a comprehensive peace with Iran, because this is currently impossible, but to establish rules of the game that will ensure that reciprocal attacks do not turn into war. This requires the recognition of spheres of influence and non-aggression obligations.

European countries support this initiative because they see it as a way to protect themselves from migration crises and receive guarantees for energy security and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Turkey, Pakistan, and Egypt also support this idea.

Tehran has always stated that it needs guarantees that it will not be attacked again to end the war. Moreover, the pact is in line with Iran’s long-standing insistence that regional security issues be resolved by regional countries without US involvement.

However, there are obstacles to this pact:

1. Rejection of the idea by the Zionist regime: Israeli officials believe that a non-aggression pact between regional countries without the regime’s participation would effectively leave Tehran free on other fronts. Including Israel in a treaty with Iran is also impossible, given the ground operations in Gaza and attacks on Lebanon.

2. Split in the Arab camp: There are big differences between Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Abu Dhabi has adopted an anti-Iranian stance and criticizes the inadequate response of the Arab world to Tehran’s actions. The UAE plans to deepen its military alliance with Israel after the war, which directly contradicts Saudi Arabia’s concept of “resetting” relations with Iran.

3. The problem of guarantees: Even commitments secured by international guarantees of respect for sovereignty and the non-use of force, which are the basic principles of the Helsinki Accords, can be violated by changing political circumstances.

In an interview with Izvestia, Daniil Krylov, a researcher in the Near East and Post-Soviet Department of the Institute of Scientific Information in Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences, expressed deep skepticism about the idea and asked who would guarantee such deals.

According to Krylov, multilateral agreements in West Asia are working very poorly. To be effective, an agreement needs to be bilateral in a multilateral format. But how will the GCC countries react if one of the treaties is violated? This is an unanswered question.

Lena Panina, director of the Russtrat Institute for International Political and Economic Strategies, believes that the non-aggression pact between Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other West Asian countries does not guarantee regional security, because the real sources of tension in this region are Israel and the United States. The fruition of such a pact would have been quite possible without these catalysts for war. Tehran will certainly raise the issue of the withdrawal of American and Zionist troops from the territory of West Asian countries. Given the limited sovereignty of these countries, this seems unlikely. According to her, West Asian countries have become hostages of their policy of closeness to the United States and Israel.