A warning by former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has crystallised fears among Gulf states that reopening the Strait of Hormuz may be the most Iran-U.S. talks can achieve, falling short of the broader de-escalation they regard as vital.
Officials and analysts expect the next round of negotiations, due in Islamabad, will focus increasingly not on Iran’s missiles or regional proxies but on uranium enrichment limits and how to handle Iran’s leverage over the Strait, the world’s most critical oil shipping route.
Gulf officials warn the approach risks entrenching Iran’s grip on Middle East energy supplies by managing rather than dismantling its leverage, prioritising global economic stability even while leaving the countries most exposed to the energy and security consequences outside formal decision-making.
Gulf sources say U.S.–Iran diplomacy is now centered less on rolling back Iran’s missile programme and more on enrichment levels and tacitly accepting Tehran’s leverage over Hormuz, which carries about a fifth of global oil supplies.
Although negotiations remain stalled over enrichment, with Iran rejecting both zero enrichment and demands to ship its stockpiles abroad, Gulf officials say the shift in priorities itself is troubling.
“At the end of the day, Hormuz will be the red line,” one Gulf source close to government circles said. “It wasn’t an issue before. It is now. The goal posts have moved.”
There was no immediate response from Gulf Arab governments to requests for comment on the issues raised in this article.
Iran’s threats to Gulf shipping during the war have broken long‑standing taboos around the Strait, making its disruption a realistic lever in negotiations for the first time.
Hormuz’s central role was bluntly articulated by Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, in a post on X on April 8.
“It’s not clear how the truce between Washington and Tehran will play out,” Medvedev said. “But one thing is certain — Iran has tested its nuclear weapons. It is called the Strait of Hormuz. Its potential is inexhaustible.”
HORMUZ IS A ‘GOLDEN ASSET’, SAYS IRANIAN SECURITY SOURCE
Iranian security officials privately echo that view, describing the Strait not as a contingency but as a long‑prepared instrument of deterrence.
“Iran prepared for years for a scenario involving the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, planning every step,” said a senior Iranian security source. “Today it is one of Iran’s most effective tools — a form of geographic leverage that serves as a powerful deterrent.”
The source described the Strait as a “golden, invaluable asset rooted in Iran’s geography — one the world cannot take away precisely because it flows from Iran’s location.”
A second Iranian source, close to the Revolutionary Guards, went further, suggesting that a long‑standing taboo surrounding the use of Hormuz had now been broken.
This source described Hormuz as a sword “drawn from its sheath” that the U.S. and regional states could not ignore, providing the region with leverage against external powers.
What alarms Gulf Arab states most, analysts say, is that while Iranian missiles, drones and proxies have repeatedly attacked their region, negotiations are increasingly framed almost exclusively around Hormuz because of its global economic impact, marginalising Gulf security concerns.
At its core, the Hormuz dispute is less about who controls the Strait than about who sets the rules of passage, Gulf sources say, reflecting a broader shift away from fixed international norms toward power‑based arrangements.
That, said Ebtesam Al-Ketbi, president of the Emirates Policy Center, exposes an imbalance between those who define the rules and those who bear the consequences when rules are broken.
“What is taking shape today is not a historic settlement,” Al‑Ketbi told Reuters, “but a deliberate engineering of sustainable conflict.”
“Who’s suffering from missiles and proxies?” she added. “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.”
CAUTION ON SANCTIONS RELIEF
Analysts warn such an approach in the talks would not so much resolve tensions as stabilise them at manageable levels, an outcome that may suit Washington and Tehran but risks entrenching instability for Gulf states living under the threat of missiles.
The U.S.–Israeli war on Iran, which began on February 28, has already left Gulf economies absorbing the fallout, from attacks on energy infrastructure to rising export and insurance costs. Alternative trade export routes raise costs and remain exposed to the same Iranian missile threats.
Diplomats say Gulf officials have urged Washington against full sanctions relief, advocating a phased approach to test Iran’s behaviour. They say core threats remain unaddressed, notably missiles able to hit Gulf capitals and Iran’s armed proxies used as extensions of the Iranian state.
Across the Arab Gulf, sentiment toward Washington now ranges from quiet resentment to growing frustration and confusion over unilateral U.S. decision‑making.
Abdulaziz Sager, Chairman of the Saudi-based Gulf Research Center, said dealing with the Iran issue required “a different approach.”
“The U.S. is part and parcel of regional security…” he added. “But that does not mean acting unilaterally — going full-fledged without involving the region.”
While Gulf leaders bristle at being sidelined, they privately and publicly concede that U.S. military capabilities continue to shape outcomes through their unmatched superiority.
UAE academic Abdulkhaleq Abdulla said that Gulf Arab states had survived the war in large part due to their own defences and sophisticated U.S.-supplied weapons such as the THAAD and Patriot air defence systems.
