Gulf States Express Alarm Over Narrow Focus of Iran-U.S. Negotiations
In Dubai, concerns are mounting among Gulf Arab states as former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev's recent warning highlights fears that upcoming Iran-U.S. talks may prioritize reopening the Strait of Hormuz over achieving comprehensive de-escalation. Officials and analysts anticipate that the next round of negotiations, scheduled in Islamabad, will increasingly center on uranium enrichment limits and managing Iran's control over the Strait, which handles approximately one-fifth of global oil shipments, rather than addressing Iran's missile program or regional proxy networks.
Shift in Diplomatic Priorities Raises Regional Anxieties
Gulf sources indicate that the diplomatic dialogue between the United States and Iran has evolved, with less emphasis on rolling back Iran's missile capabilities and more on enrichment levels and tacit acceptance of Tehran's leverage over Hormuz. This strategic pivot is viewed as troubling by Gulf officials, who argue it risks solidifying Iran's grip on Middle East energy supplies by merely managing, rather than dismantling, its influence. "At the end of the day, Hormuz will be the red line," stated a Gulf source close to government circles. "It wasn't an issue before. It is now. The goal posts have moved."
Iran's threats to disrupt Gulf shipping during recent conflicts have shattered long-standing taboos surrounding the Strait, transforming its potential closure into a tangible bargaining chip in negotiations for the first time. Medvedev, serving as deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council, underscored this point in an April 8 social media post, describing Hormuz as a form of leverage that allows Iran to exert pressure without crossing nuclear thresholds. "It's not clear how the truce between Washington and Tehran will play out," Medvedev remarked. "But one thing is certain ― Iran has tested its nuclear weapons. It is called the Strait of Hormuz. Its potential is inexhaustible."
Iranian Officials Tout Hormuz as a Strategic Deterrent
Iranian security sources privately reinforce this perspective, portraying the Strait not as a contingency plan but as a meticulously prepared instrument of deterrence. A senior Iranian security official explained, "Iran prepared for years for a scenario involving the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, planning every step. Today it is one of Iran's most effective tools ― a form of geographic leverage that serves as a powerful deterrent." Another source close to the Revolutionary Guards suggested that the traditional taboo against using Hormuz as a bargaining chip has been decisively broken, likening it to a sword drawn from its sheath that regional and global powers cannot ignore.
Analysts note that what particularly alarms Gulf Arab states is the negotiation framework increasingly focusing almost exclusively on Hormuz due to its global economic impact, thereby marginalizing pressing Gulf security concerns such as missile attacks and proxy warfare. Ebtesam Al-Ketbi, president of the Emirates Policy Center, articulated this frustration, stating, "What is taking shape today is not a historic settlement, but a deliberate engineering of sustainable conflict." She added, "Who's suffering from missiles and proxies? Israel, and specifically the Gulf states. What would be a good deal for us is addressing missiles, proxies ― and Hormuz. And it seems they don't care about the missiles or the proxies."
Broader Implications for Regional Stability and Global Rules
At its core, the dispute over Hormuz revolves less around physical control of the Strait and more about who establishes the rules of passage, reflecting a broader shift from fixed international norms toward power-based arrangements. This dynamic exposes an imbalance between those who define the rules and those who bear the consequences when rules are violated, according to Gulf sources. Analysts caution that the current approach in talks may not resolve underlying tensions but rather stabilize them at manageable levels, an outcome that could suit Washington and Tehran while entrenching instability for Gulf states facing persistent missile threats.
The U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, which commenced on February 28, has already inflicted economic fallout on Gulf economies, including attacks on energy infrastructure and rising export and insurance costs. Diplomatic efforts have seen Gulf officials urging Washington against full sanctions relief, advocating instead for a phased approach to test Iran's behavior. They emphasize that core threats, such as missiles capable of striking Gulf capitals and Iran's armed proxies, remain inadequately addressed.
Sentiment across the Arab Gulf toward Washington now ranges from quiet resentment to growing frustration over unilateral U.S. decision-making. Abdulaziz Sager, Chairman of the Saudi-based Gulf Research Center, remarked, "The U.S. is part and parcel of regional security... But that does not mean acting unilaterally — going full-fledged without involving the region." While Gulf leaders acknowledge the indispensable role of U.S. military capabilities, including advanced defense systems like THAAD and Patriot, they also recognize the limits of relying on a single external protector.
Mohammed Baharoon, director of the Dubai-based research center B'huth, noted that one of the key lessons from the conflict is the constraint of dependence on an external guardian. Gulf Arab rulers have long warned Washington against escalating tensions with Iran, yet they have maintained public silence since the war erupted, reflecting not only diplomatic caution but also uncertainty over a conflict that imposes economic and defense costs without granting them control. As negotiations proceed, Gulf officials argue that their exclusion from the talks is no longer merely a regional issue but a global concern, given the international significance of the Strait of Hormuz.
