Monday’s summit in Egypt’s Red Sea city of Sharm El Sheikh marked a moment that could reshape the regional landscape. Led by US President Donald Trump, the gathering brought together world and regional leaders to witness the signing of a Gaza ceasefire deal — a fragile yet historic step after more than two years of devastating conflict.
Tens of thousands have perished, and entire neighborhoods have been reduced to rubble. Against that backdrop, the sight of Trump alongside Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El Sisi symbolized an effort to pivot from bloodshed toward diplomacy. The event may have lacked granular detail, but it carried undeniable weight: a rare convergence of global and Arab leadership seeking to end the war in Gaza.
Yet, amid the high-profile attendance, two glaring absences defined the summit — Israel and Iran.
Absent but Not Forgotten
Despite receiving invitations, neither Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nor Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian attended — nor did they send representatives.
Netanyahu’s withdrawal, officially blamed on a Jewish holiday, quickly stirred speculation. Observers cited multiple possible motives: pressure from far-right factions, unease over his ICC arrest warrant, and diplomatic boycotts threatened by certain Arab states.
Iran’s absence, however, was far more deliberate — and telling. In a formal message to President El Sisi, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi thanked Cairo for the invitation but said that neither he nor the President could “engage with counterparts who have attacked the Iranian people and continue to threaten and sanction us.” The message, a clear reference to Washington, added that Tehran nonetheless welcomed “any effort to end the bloodshed in Gaza.”
A Strategic Misstep Disguised as Principle
From a Gulf perspective, Iran’s decision reads less as strategy and more as diplomatic retreat.
The Sharm El Sheikh summit could have offered Tehran a long-sought platform — not only to champion the Palestinian cause it so often invokes but also to reset its relationship with Washington at a critical juncture. The event was widely viewed as an opportunity for potential first-ever face-to-face engagement between sitting presidents of Iran and the United States.
By declining, Iran effectively walked away from influence. The move underscores a broader paralysis within its leadership since the Israeli–American strikes on Iranian territory earlier this year — a moment that left the regime defensive and uncertain.
Ironically, this is the same establishment that once protested being excluded from the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference. Now, invited to the table, Tehran chose to stay home.
Ideology Over Pragmatism
Iran’s absence also revealed a deeper truth: its foreign policy remains hostage to ideology.
Even as the rest of the world reaffirms commitment to a two-state solution, Tehran’s hardline insistence on Israel’s destruction continues to isolate it. Within Iran, however, the decision triggered fierce public debate.
Reformist voices and prominent intellectuals took to social media urging attendance. Political scientist Sadegh Zibakalam called the summit “a historic opportunity not to be missed,” insisting that “foreign policy must shift from ideology to national interest.” Veteran journalist Mohammad Ghouchani echoed the call, arguing that Iran should “shock the world” by breaking its diplomatic isolation.
Former diplomat Hamid Abutalebi framed the invitation as proof that Washington’s tone toward Tehran had softened, while Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, a former parliamentary security chief, said Iran’s presence could have “further isolated Israel” and opened a channel for de-escalation.
Hardliners Close Ranks
The conservative establishment, however, quickly shut down such talk.
Former culture minister Ayatollah Mohajerani dismissed Trump’s initiative as “theatre,” a sentiment echoed by hardline MP Mojtaba Zarei. State-aligned media like Fars News Agency derided reformists for advocating what it mockingly called “accidental diplomacy,” suggesting they hoped for a chance encounter between Pezeshkian and Trump.
Tehran’s Hamshahri Daily published “10 reasons” for boycotting the summit — from refusing to “legitimize normalization” with Israel to rejecting Western-led negotiations. Predictably, the hardliners prevailed, reinforcing Iran’s image as a nation unwilling to engage unless it controls the narrative.
Trump’s Challenge and Iran’s Dilemma
Meanwhile, Trump used the summit’s momentum to issue a direct appeal to Tehran.
Speaking before the Israeli Knesset, he urged Iran to recognize Israel’s right to exist and to end support for armed proxies across the Middle East. “We are ready when you are,” Trump declared, extending what he called “a hand of friendship and co-operation.”
It was not his first overture. His administration’s stance remains unchanged: sanctions relief in exchange for nuclear and regional restraint. But Iran’s leadership, despite years of economic pressure and social discontent, continues to shy away from engagement.
The question now is not whether Tehran can talk — but whether it dares to.
The Cost of Staying Away
In choosing absence, Iran may believe it preserved its revolutionary purity. But in reality, it only deepened its isolation.
For regional powers like those in the Gulf, this underscores a critical divide: effective diplomacy requires presence, not posturing. By refusing to join the global conversation on Gaza’s future, Tehran ceded ground to others — Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE — who are shaping a pragmatic new regional order.
As the Middle East seeks stability, Iran’s empty seat in Sharm El Sheikh stands as a symbol — not of principle, but of paralysis.
In diplomacy, absence is never neutral. Iran’s refusal to engage in a peace summit aimed at ending the Gaza war shows not defiance, but drift. The region is changing — and while others move forward to define the next chapter of Middle Eastern politics, Tehran remains trapped in a script it wrote decades ago.
