Factors Affecting Regional Security Governance in West Asia (2011-2020): A Comparative Study of Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia

West Asia has long been a hotspot for various forms of violence. The complex and multifaceted security threats in the region—coupled with the inherent fragility of states—demand that security be redefined within a new, regional framework. To break away from traditional security policies, there is increasing emphasis on the growing role of non-state actors, established norms, and cooperative security arrangements. In this context, the concept of governance is offered as a means to describe both the dispersion of power and the emergence of new oversight mechanisms that counterbalance state dominance. As a result, regional security governance is now seen as an important form of collective security. With this in mind, this study focuses on three key regional powers—Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia—to examine the process of security governance and the factors that shape it.

The study employs a mixed-methods approach. On the quantitative side, international data were analyzed to review the progress of regional security governance over the past decade. For the qualitative aspect, a focus group session was conducted with 10 experts (9 men and 1 woman), and the discussions were analyzed using MAXQDA software.

In terms of persuasive (or soft) policies, Iran’s performance improved steadily, with its score rising from 20 in 2012 to over 24 in 2016. Conversely, Saudi Arabia’s persuasive policy score dropped from 48 in 2011 to about 33 in 2022, and Turkey also followed a downward trend. Regarding coercive (or hard) policies, Saudi Arabia achieved the highest score of 70 in 2015, while Iran recorded the lowest score of 40 in 2013. Additionally, Iran has been more effective in countering ISIS, whereas Saudi Arabia and Turkey escalated tensions with their military operations in Yemen and parts of Iraq and Syria, respectively. While Iran demonstrated that regional security is a top priority in its fight against ISIS, Turkey generally focused on protecting its borders from refugees and terrorist attacks, even seizing opportunities to intervene in Syria. The qualitative analysis identified 9 main categories and 25 sub-categories (with a total frequency of 310 mentions). Data analysis revealed that 84% of the obstacles to regional security governance in West Asia were associated with persuasive (soft) policies, while only 16% were linked to coercive (hard) measures. This finding suggests that before resorting to hard security tools, establishing regional security governance in this region should primarily rely on diplomatic dialogue and softer forms of engagement.

Focusing on Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, this research identifies both positive and negative factors influencing regional security governance in West Asia from 2011 to 2022. The study shows that security in the region cannot be ensured by governments alone. Instead, the active participation of non-state actors, international organizations, and a mix of persuasive (diplomatic and economic) and coercive (military and security) tools are crucial to shaping regional security governance. The analysis also indicates significant differences among the regional powers.Their national objectives tend to be almost diametrically opposed, resulting in a fluctuating form of regional security governance. For instance, the persuasive tools used by Iran in resolving regional disputes averaged a score of 22, compared to averages of 36 and 38 for Saudi Arabia and Turkey, respectively. While Saudi Arabia and Turkey show similar tendencies in their use of persuasive and coercive methods, Iran has taken a notably different approach. Reflecting on Europe's approach to regional security governance, it’s clear that after World War II, European nations were able to adopt a democracy-based framework with support from the United States that led to nearly uniform responses to conflicts.However, in West Asia, the role of major powers has had the opposite effect—fueling tensions and exacerbating conflicts. Their involvement, most notably their support for the establishment of Israel, has contributed to major issues such as the Arab-Israeli wars, increased securitization, and a drift toward authoritarianism among regional governments. The military presence of extra-regional powers has pressured these countries to prioritize military solutions instead of diplomatic ones. Furthermore, the region’s geopolitical and economic significance continues to fuel competition among thses powers. Rivalries, such as that between China and the United States, have even led to bloc formations in the region, potentially undermining the development of regional security governance. Even the region's failed state- and nation-building process—which is seen as one of the main reasons why this form of governance has not been established in West Asia—has been influenced, to some extent, by the Sykes-Picot Agreement and by Israel.The qualitative findings further highlight that regional powers’ abilities to protect their societies (by leveraging resources for defense and military intervention), combined with their unique interpretations of security and stability, domestic multi-actor dynamics (involving the role of non-state actors), and external delegations to regional organizations, are among the key factors shaping regional security governance. On the other hand, issues such as the Israel factor, extra-regional interventions, authoritarian tendencies, strategic culture, border disputes, and incomplete or unsynchronized political and economic structures have negatively affected its development.