Functional Neutrality in the Arab World: The Case of Oman

Abstract

Oman's position of neutrality came under direct strain at the start of the Iran War, as the Islamic Republic launched retaliatory strikes on its territory and maritime infrastructure. The attacks came despite Muscat's careful maneuvering within the Israeli‐Palestinian conflict and its mediating in regional disputes and facilitating US‐Iran nuclear talks. This study examines how and why Muscat constructed its functional neutrality and how the Iran conflict is testing the limits of this position. Scholarship on neutrality has largely focused on Europe, where the concept is understood as a formal commitment to nonparticipation in war. This limits its applicability to non‐Western contexts. We develop the concept of functional neutrality as shaped by three interrelated dimensions: structural dependence, calculations of national interest, and ideological alignment. The study then combines an examination of Oman's foreign policy with a content analysis of its speeches at the United Nations General Assembly over more than 50 years. By tracing Oman's conduct across multiple conflicts, we show how military restraint and preference for mediation can emerge in the absence of traditional legal neutrality, even under the pressures of a regional war.