The United States is stepping up its efforts to curb Iran’s regional reach and influence, premised on the belief that Tehran has never been so powerful in the Middle East. But Iran’s powerful hand is not merely a reflection of its successful strategic conduct. It has also come about as a result of its rivals’ miscalculated regional policies. Saudi Arabia’s catastrophic military and political campaigns in Syria, Yemen, Qatar and Lebanon, for instance, demolished much of Riyadh’s traditional influence while elevating Iran’s positions. Such policies were encouraged by the US “leading from behind” policy, which induced more agency among some Arab states accustomed to the American security umbrella. The failure of the Arab campaigns strengthened the Iran-led “Axis of Resistance” on an unprecedented scale. Having been targeted indirectly by the “leading from behind” policy, Iran is now faced with a more organized US effort to establish a regional setting — an "Arab NATO," the Middle East Strategic Alliance (MESA) — that is supposed to “push back” against Iran.

President Donald Trump has been signaling different, sometimes contradictory, messages since taking office. His anti-Iran rhetoric and policy on the one hand amid his parallel call for an unconditional meeting with Iranian leaders on the other seem contradictory. Yet as the summit between the leaders of the United States and North Korea in Singapore suggests, these contradictions may, in fact, be two sides of the same coin. It is for this reason that Iran hawks in Washington and in the Middle East are nervous about Trump’s offer of unconditional dialogue. But Iran hawks should nonetheless be thrilled given the recent talk of the US creation of MESA out of eight Sunni Arab nations — in line with the Trump administration’s anti-Iran campaign. The obvious goal is to counter Iran. At least from Tehran’s view, this is at odds with the US president’s offer of unconditional dialogue. Whether Trump’s messages are in harmony or not, the Islamic Republic cannot afford to negotiate with a threatening party. In fact, no one in Tehran can enter such dialogue.

Against this backdrop, Iran does not seem worried about US efforts to create MESA. In fact, Washington’s new anti-Iran campaign in the Middle East and beyond is interpreted as falling within the “milking logic” of the Trump administration. Mindful of its regional reach and influence and the strong position of the "Axis of Resistance" it leads compared with that of its Arab rivals, Tehran seems ready to confront any challenge. The latter can safely be assumed disregarding the fact that the idea of an "Arab NATO" is not new but rather a repeatedly attempted and failed enterprise of decades past. Yet Iran’s relaxed reaction to the current endeavor cannot merely be a reflection of the aforementioned understanding of the situation. Tehran knows that the Trump administration’s campaign against it can bear bitter fruit both for Iran and the region. This begs the question of what precisely the underpinnings of Iran’s relaxed reaction toward MESA may really be.

It is evident that a more organized “leading from behind” policy seems at play in the Trump era. Instead of asking the Saudis to learn “to share the Middle East with Iran,” the US president is organizing an anti-Iran front to target and degrade Tehran’s stakes in the region. But the feasibility of success in overcoming Arab differences and creating a new coalition appears to be a long shot. For instance, some Arab nations included in MESA are closer to Iran than Saudi Arabia, such as Oman and Qatar, while others — such as Kuwait — attempt to stay neutral. Therefore, Washington’s new policy will likely be more challenged by its sought partners as opposed to foes and rivals of the envisioned Arab military alliance.