Time and the Unveiling of Truth
Some phenomena need time before their true nature becomes visible. In our personal lives, we have all experienced moments when we believed in a certain narrative for years only to see it collapse in a decisive instant, leaving us stunned. First comes shock, then denial, then gradual acceptance, and eventually life settles into a new equilibrium. Not all psychological ruptures heal easily. But one principle is almost certain: if given time, truth reveals itself. Politics is no different except that the cost of truth emerging in politics is measured not in personal discomfort, but in millions of lives and decades of stagnation.
Surprise Means Different Things in Different Contexts
Surprise carries different weight depending on who delivers it. A betrayal from a close family member is not the same as one from a distant acquaintance. The gravity of betrayal depends on context, position, and stakes. Betrayal over something trivial is one thing; betrayal over a matter of life and death is another. In international politics, surprise is the ultimate failure. The true winner is the actor who is never caught off guard who treats every player simultaneously as a potential friend, adversary, or neutral party, and who has already simulated every scenario. Yet real-world politics is far grayer than this binary logic suggests. Nations influence one another; social emotions shape political decisions; policy choices reverberate socially. A clear example is the treatment of Iranian-Americans following the 1979 hostage crisis. Policy and society are not separate spheres; they exist in a continuous cycle of mutual influence.
The Myth of “Friendship” in International Politics
At the individual level, friendship holds a rare and almost sacred value:
a friend whose long-term interests align with yours, who celebrates your success, defends you in your absence, and seeks your good both publicly and privately. At the international level, such friendship almost never exists.
On the global stage, actors pursue long-term self-interest. Any partnership is the product of temporary alignment of interests. That alignment may endure in the short or medium term but it can reverse by 180 degrees at any moment.
The Gulf States: The Cold Logic of Interests
For decades, the United States contributed to the development of the Arab Gulf states from knowledge and technology to management, infrastructure, and security. These efforts were not acts of altruism; they served American interests. Still, even within the logic of social reciprocity, one might expect deeper solidarity at pivotal historical moments. But it did not materialize. When regime change in Iran appeared to approach an unavoidable phase, these same states opposed it at the highest levels of decision-making. Why? Because regime change in Iran would have altered the regional balance in unpredictable ways transformations that could disrupt their economic positions, security frameworks, and even identity narratives. They perhaps entirely rationally prioritized their own interests.
Turkey: A Simple Calculation
In Turkey’s case, the calculation is not complicated. For Ankara, regime change in Iran is a lose lose scenario. If Iran were to descend into large-scale conflict and instability, Turkey’s tourism industry worth approximately $65 billion in 2025 would likely suffer. If, on the other hand, a nationalist, development-oriented government emerged in Iran, economic and tourism competition would intensify. Maintaining the status quo, therefore, is a rational short- to medium-term choice within Turkey’s interest framework. This does not require extraordinary intelligence to understand.
But the Gulf Is a Different Story
For the Gulf states, the matter is different. Countries where, until recently, women could not leave their homes without male guardianship have, within a few decades, transformed into modern economic players. The United States was not merely a partner; in many respects, it played the role of a generous father one who certainly leveraged their capacities for its own purposes, but who also empowered them. Yet at a critical moment, these “sons” chose to see only their own interests. This was a geopolitical surprise. And its roots trace back to an earlier decision.
The Foundational Mistake: 1979
At one point, the United States chose to stop being Iran’s “brother” and instead become the “father” of the Gulf states. It withdrew support from the Pahlavi monarchy and recognized an alternative power structure one that, in the long run, aligned neither with Iran’s development, nor with regional stability, nor with America’s own long-term interests. The United States could never have played the role of father to a nation with Iran’s history, capacity, and civilizational depth. Had the U.S.–Iran relationship continued, it would have been one of equals of brothers not of guardianship. In an alternative scenario, if today a similar crisis unfolded in Turkey, a free and developed Iran would have been prepared to stand by Ankara even before Washington made a request. That potential brother was lost. And yes—they know what was lost.
Regret Is Not Futile—If It Leads to Correction
Resenting the past changes nothing. But mature actors in international politics must know when to accept the cost of a mistake and correct course.
It is not too late for the United States. Iranians are a people with deep historical roots and immense cultural capacity. The same society that absorbed invaders and turned violence into civilization possesses profound resilience. Culturally speaking, no nation in the region overlaps with American values as much as the Iranian people do. On the day Iran is free, it will be America’s second home. The bond between Iran and the United States could become one of the most distinctive geopolitical partnerships of the century.
But such a bond will only form when America acknowledges that it once mistakenly surrendered its brother—and must now choose whether to reclaim that relationship.