Peace in the Gulf requires accountability, not strategic concessions

The growing momentum behind a possible US-Iran agreement is being presented internationally as a diplomatic breakthrough capable of preventing a wider regional war. Reports suggest the framework may include reopening the Strait of Hormuz, sanctions relief, a ceasefire arrangement and future nuclear negotiations.

From a Gulf perspective, however, the issue is not simply whether a deal is reached. The real question is what kind of deal emerges — and whether it strengthens long-term regional stability or unintentionally rewards the very tactics that created the crisis in the first place.

The Gulf states have the most to lose from any instability involving the Strait of Hormuz. Their economies, energy exports, maritime trade and national security are directly tied to the uninterrupted flow of international shipping through Gulf waters. Unlike global powers that can approach the crisis through broader geopolitical calculations, Gulf Cooperation Council countries live with the consequences immediately and directly.

This is why Gulf capitals are likely to support any agreement that genuinely reduces tensions, guarantees freedom of navigation and restores regional stability. But they are equally justified in fearing an arrangement that allows Iran to emerge politically stronger after months of escalation, threats to shipping lanes and regional pressure tactics.

Much of the current diplomatic momentum exists precisely because Iran demonstrated its ability to disrupt one of the world’s most vital maritime chokepoints. Tehran’s threats surrounding Hormuz triggered global energy concerns, rising oil prices and fears of economic disruption far beyond the Middle East.

Any agreement that appears to reward coercive leverage risks encouraging similar crises in the future

Hani Hazaimeh

If the end result of this confrontation is major sanctions relief, international recognition of Iran’s strategic leverage and expanded regional influence without meaningful constraints on its future conduct, then the message sent to the region would be deeply dangerous: escalation works.

No country should be allowed to weaponize international waterways, threaten global commerce and then convert that pressure into political and economic gains without binding commitments to future stability. Any agreement that appears to reward coercive leverage risks encouraging similar crises in the future — not preventing them.

For the GCC, the core issue is not opposition to diplomacy with Iran. Gulf states themselves have consistently pursued de-escalation, dialogue and pragmatic engagement in recent years. The problem is whether diplomacy addresses the root causes of instability or merely freezes tensions temporarily while leaving the strategic imbalance untouched.

Any sustainable agreement must therefore include clear guarantees regarding maritime security and freedom of navigation in accordance with international law.

The Strait of Hormuz cannot become subject to political bargaining or selective access based on Iran’s calculations. International shipping lanes are governed by established maritime laws and principles that ensure free passage for all nations. Reports and speculation suggesting that Iran may seek special recognition of its control over the strait or privileged influence over transit arrangements should be rejected entirely.

Such a precedent would fundamentally undermine international maritime norms and create permanent uncertainty for global energy markets.

From the Gulf perspective, any US-Iran deal must establish clear and enforceable obligations that prevent future threats to shipping routes, energy exports and regional trade infrastructure. Temporary promises are not enough. The region has already experienced repeated cycles of escalation followed by fragile de-escalation agreements that fail to resolve underlying tensions.

The current negotiations represent an important test for the credibility of the international system

Hani Hazaimeh

The GCC states are also likely concerned that some Western powers may prioritize immediate stability over long-term balance. Washington’s primary objective may be to avoid another costly military confrontation and stabilize global oil markets before economic damage deepens further. But the region must think beyond short-term market reactions. Their concern is the future regional order that could emerge from such negotiations.

If Iran gains economic recovery, sanctions relief and diplomatic legitimacy while maintaining its regional pressure mechanisms intact, the strategic balance in the Gulf could shift in ways that increase long-term insecurity.

This is particularly important because the nuclear issue alone has never been the sole source of Gulf concerns. Regional proxy networks, missile capabilities, maritime pressure tactics and interference in Arab affairs remain central elements of the broader security equation. A narrow deal focused only on uranium enrichment while ignoring these wider dynamics would leave many GCC concerns unresolved.

At the same time, Gulf states recognize that permanent confrontation with Iran is not a viable path forward. Geography makes coexistence unavoidable. Stability in the Gulf ultimately requires regional understandings based on mutual respect, noninterference and adherence to international law.

The current negotiations represent an important test not only for US-Iran relations, but for the credibility of the international system itself. If maritime security and international trade routes can be held hostage during periods of political confrontation, global stability becomes vulnerable to repeated coercion.

This is why any agreement must move beyond vague diplomatic language and establish concrete mechanisms that guarantee freedom of navigation, respect for sovereignty and noninterference in regional affairs.

For the region, success will not be measured simply by whether the fighting stops temporarily. It will be measured by whether the agreement creates a stable regional framework where no state can threaten collective prosperity through maritime disruption or geopolitical blackmail.

The Gulf states do not seek Iran’s collapse, nor do they seek endless confrontation. They seek a balanced regional order where stability is protected by international law rather than dictated by whoever can create the greatest disruption.

• Hani Hazaimeh is a senior editor based in Amman. X: @hanihazaimeh