No one can say with certainty whether war or peace lies ahead between the US and Iran, but what is certain is that both have been exhausted by the conflict. The Gulf countries had no say in the outbreak of the war, yet they have paid a heavy price for it. If there is to be peace, it is unacceptable for the Gulf to be sidelined after bearing that cost. That is the starting point for reading the current efforts to end a confrontation suspended between neither war nor peace. The Gulf states hold a direct stake in shaping any eventual settlement, and their participation is a prerequisite for an agreement meant to last.
The cost to the Gulf is not confined to a struck facility or a disabled ship. In the Strait of Hormuz, energy and trade flows are disrupted, shipping and insurance risks escalate, and delivery schedules grow increasingly uncertain. In Bab al-Mandeb, the Houthi threat to navigation forces vessels onto longer routes, driving up transport costs and delaying supplies. Caught between these two straits, regional economies, which rely on uninterrupted trade to sustain projects and ensure domestic jobs and stability, are suffering.
The Gulf position calling for de-escalation therefore stems from an understanding of national interest. The Gulf countries have built their plans on economic diversification, attracting investment, and opening the door to work for millions of non-citizens. The continuation of the conflict consumes some of what was set aside for these goals. They need a neighborhood that can be dealt with according to clear international rules, and clarity is the last thing one can expect from Iran, as we are seeing and experiencing.
This is what gives value to the mediation led by Qatar and supported by Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf countries. Doha has continued to exchange proposals and narrow the gap between Washington and Tehran, and Prince Khalid bin Salman went to Tehran, despite the escalation against Saudi Arabia, in pursuit of some rational understanding. The Gulf foreign ministers have affirmed that the effort is being conducted in coordination with regional partners. With all these efforts, the observer wakes up holding one view and goes to sleep holding the opposite.
Saudi Arabia's contacts with the parties concerned and its continued dialogue with Iran thus keep it present in the search for a way out. Riyadh has a political and economic weight that any viable future regional arrangement will need. The multiplicity of Gulf channels of communication can help the negotiations, provided it rests on agreement over objectives and a distribution of roles that prevents differences among the capitals from being exploited.
Whatever the situation, the Gulf mediator must not lose sight of its own interests because it carries the two sides' messages. It must work for a settlement that safeguards those interests, founded on freedom of navigation and the protection of civilian facilities. An agreement that addresses one aspect of the nuclear file is not enough while the threats to the sea lanes and the armed ideological groups loyal to Iran continue to undermine regional security. Any agreement might halt one round of fighting while leaving the causes of the next in place.
The mediation coincides with signs that the Ukrainian-Russian settlement may be set in motion. Talks were held last weekend in Abu Dhabi, the UAE capital, bringing together Russia, Ukraine, the United States, and several European states. No white smoke emerged when they ended, and the ongoing fighting warrants caution: proximity to negotiations does not equate to proximity to peace. Disputes over territory and security guarantees remain major obstacles to reaching an understanding in this prolonged conflict.
If the Ukrainian track advances, the priorities of the great powers may shift, expanding their capacity to address other pressing files, Iran among them. Washington and Moscow could find mutual interest in understandings that ease tensions beyond Europe. While this possibility is worth weighing, it should not be mistaken for a grand bargain that settles the fate of every region. For the Gulf, the lesson is clear: present its demands early, before understandings solidify that will be difficult to amend later.
In Israel, the choice of Gadi Eisenkot to attempt to form a government opens the possibility of a change of leadership, but it does not guarantee a radical change of policy. Coalition calculations, party positions, and the effect of the war on Israeli society, which has deepened its intolerance, shape the room for maneuver available to any Israeli government. Hopes should not be pinned solely on one leader departing and another taking over, nor should the opportunity a political shift might offer to alter the calculus of escalation be overlooked.
The Gulf yardstick must remain tied to tangible conduct: we must wait and see whether a serious track opens for Palestinian rights. The region cannot achieve stability while Palestinians remain excluded from any political horizon. The Gulf participation needed here does not mean granting anyone the right to determine another state's future, but rather entrenching the right of the region's countries to their own security and sovereignty.
Iran must understand that reassuring its neighbors requires practical commitments, and Washington must understand that its agreement with Tehran is no substitute for consulting its partners. The Gulf countries have a clear view of what they accept and what they reject, and their future economic cooperation is tied to conduct that respects those commitments. A unified Gulf position has now taken shape - one that defines its security and economic demands and seeks to translate its mediation efforts into a meaningful role in shaping the arrangements to come.
Any settlement must include concrete mechanisms for verification and addressing violations, rather than vague pledges that are difficult to test. Having borne a heavy share of the cost and actively contributed to the search for a solution, the Gulf has the right to be a full partner in defining the conditions for stability and to ensure its interests are factored into any eventual agreement.
Last word: those who bear the cost of a conflict have a share in shaping its end.
