٢٨ فبراير ٢٠٢٦·١ دقيقة قراءة

In my view, the confusion arises from equating non-interference with alignment. Omani foreign policy is grounded in respect for what societies choose for themselves and in engagement with states based on the principles of sovereignty and good neighbourliness, without engineering political systems or directing the choices of peoples. This is a consistent approach that has not shifted with changes in regimes; in 1979, Oman refrained from influencing Iran’s internal trajectory and maintained its relations in accordance with what the Iranian people chose, as it has done before and since with all states. Placing Oman’s role within a framework of alignment leads to an inaccurate reading. Oman engages peoples with respect and states with sovereign pragmatism, and works to prevent the region from sliding into open conflict, whose cost would be borne by all. What remains constant in this course is the principle, not shifting positions: the principle of respecting sovereignty and safeguarding stability. War rearranges people’s lives on the ruins of politics; its price is bloodshed, destroyed cities, and displaced families, and its consequences extend beyond the parties involved to entire nations. Preventing such a slide is a responsibility that precedes all other calculations, because the cost of confrontation ultimately falls on the human being, first and last.