As a 14-day truce announced by the United States and Iran, brokered by Pakistan on April 8, continues to hold, and just hours after the end of the US Iran “Islamabad talks” without an agreement, Gulf states are closely watching how the situation will evolve during the temporary ceasefire period.
Three Gulf observers shared their views in response to a question from Asharq Al-Awsat on how Gulf countries see the US-Iran negotiations and their options depending on whether a deal is reached. They broadly agreed on the importance of taking Gulf concerns into account in any negotiations.
Former Kuwaiti information minister Saad bin Tefla al-Ajmi said Gulf states are primarily concerned with two key issues, peace and stability. He stressed that under no circumstances should any Gulf country become party to negotiations over freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz or support such talks, as this would amount to negotiating an established principle of international law.
Calls to assess all possible scenarios
Al-Ajmi stressed that freedom of navigation in international straits such as Hormuz, Gibraltar and Bab al-Mandab is governed by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and should not be turned into a subject of political bargaining, as this would contradict the principle of freedom of the seas.
As for options if no agreement is reached, he said this would depend on the positions of the two sides, Iran and the United States. Gulf countries, he remarked, opposed the war from the outset but are now “required to assess all possible scenarios following the outbreak of war and exposure to Iranian attacks.”
He questioned whether Washington would continue granting Tehran additional deadlines or move toward resuming hostilities. In any case, he noted that Gulf states must be prepared for all scenarios, including the possibility of renewed conflict.
Political analyst Moneef Ammash al-Harbi said Gulf states view the US-Iran negotiations positively, based on their belief that military solutions do not lead to lasting settlements. He added that Gulf countries had sought, before February 28, to steer the region away from a military path and its consequences.
No flawed deal
Al-Harbi underlined that Gulf states do not want a flawed agreement similar to the 2015 deal, which he said does not prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons but merely delays it within a limited timeframe.
He outlined four Gulf requirements for any lasting agreement. These include preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons to avoid a regional arms race, addressing the ballistic missile issue in terms of range and capabilities, curbing Iran’s destabilizing regional role and ending support for militias, and ensuring Iran respects freedom of navigation in the Straits of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab without using direct or indirect means to disrupt it.
He warned that if no agreement is reached, Gulf states would keep all options open, including military action, particularly if Iranian attacks on Gulf countries continue.
Abdullah al-Junaid said Gulf influence was reflected in the ceasefire decision and in the choice of Pakistan as mediator. However, he noted that Gulf states “have not put forward a unified framework representing a minimum consensus on post crisis Gulf Iran relations and the safety of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.”
Al-Junaid also noted that the US Navy is currently clearing the Strait of Hormuz to secure navigation, describing this as unrelated to the halted war. He said Gulf naval forces should join the effort, as it would send political as well as security signals.
“That is the diplomacy that should be pursued now, rather than relying solely on traditional approaches,” he remarked.
