The biggest fear of the Gulf states. US-Iran negotiations may lead to consolidation of the “golden asset” up Tehran's sleeve

A warning from former Russian president and prime minister Dmitry Medvedev crystallized Gulf states' fears that the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz could be the only outcome of negotiations between Iran and the US, without achieving a broader detente in the Middle East that they consider vital, Reuters wrote in an analysis on Monday.

Officials and analysts expect the next round of talks, scheduled for Islamabad (Pakistan's capital), to increasingly focus not on Iran's missiles or regional militant groups affiliated with Tehran, but on limits on uranium enrichment and how to manage Iran's influence over the strait, the world's most important oil shipping route.

Gulf officials warn that this approach risks consolidating Iran's control over Middle Eastern energy supplies, managing rather than eliminating Tehran's influence and prioritizing global economic stability, while the states most exposed to the energy and security consequences are left out of the formal decision-making process.

Gulf sources say diplomatic negotiations between the US and Iran are now focused less on curtailing Iran's missile program and more on uranium enrichment levels and tacit acceptance of Tehran's influence over the Strait of Hormuz, through which about a fifth of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas reserves are transported.

Although negotiations on uranium enrichment remain at a standstill for the time being, with Iran rejecting both the option to give up enrichment entirely and requests to ship its stockpile abroad, Gulf officials say the shift in priorities itself is worrisome.

“In the end, the Strait of Hormuz will be the red line,” said a Gulf source close to government circles. “Before it wasn't a problem. Now it is. The rules of the game have changed.”

Reuters notes that there was no immediate reaction from the governments of the Gulf Arab countries to requests for comment on the issues raised in the material by the international news agency.

Iran's threats to Gulf shipping, made after the war broke out, broke long-standing taboos around the strait, making its disruption a realistic lever in negotiations for the first time.

The central role of the Strait of Hormuz was bluntly articulated by Dmitry Medvedev, currently the vice president of Russia's Security Council, in a message published on the X social network on April 8.

“It is 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. They are called the Strait of Hormuz. Its potential is inexhaustible.”

The remark presents the Strait of Hormuz as a means of pressure that allows Iran to raise costs and shape the rules without crossing the nuclear threshold.

A “golden asset”

Iranian security officials privately share this view, describing the strait not as an emergency measure but as a long-prepared deterrent.

“Iran has been preparing for years for a scenario involving the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, planning every step,” said a senior source in Iran's security services. “Today, this 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, priceless asset rooted in Iran's geography – one that the world cannot take away precisely because it stems from Iran's geographic position.”

A second Iranian source close to the Revolutionary Guards went further, suggesting that a long-standing taboo surrounding the use of the Strait of Hormuz had now been broken.

This source described Hormuz as an “unsheathed” sword that the US and regional states cannot ignore, giving the region an advantage over external powers.

What most alarms the Arab states of the Gulf, analysts say, is that while missiles, drones and paramilitary groups (Hezbollah, Houthi, Hamas, Islamic Jihad) backed by Tehran have repeatedly attacked their region, negotiations are increasingly focused almost exclusively on the Straits of Hormuz, due to its global economic impact, marginalizing the security concerns of the Gulf countries.

At its heart, the dispute over Hormuz is less about who controls the Strait than who sets the rules of passage, Gulf sources say, reflecting a broader trend away from fixed international norms and toward power-based arrangements.

This, said Ebtesam Al-Ketbi, president of the Emirates Policy Center, reveals an imbalance between those who define the rules and those who bear the consequences when the rules are broken.

“What is emerging today is not a historic solution,” Al-Ketbi told Reuters, “but a deliberate engineering of a lasting conflict.”

“Who is suffering because of the rackets and affiliated groups?” she added. “Israel and specifically the Gulf states. What would be a good deal for us would be (resolving) the missiles, the proxy groups (interpolated, no) — and Hormuz. And they don't seem to care about the missiles or the proxy groups.”

Caution on relaxation of sanctions

Analysts warn that such an approach in the negotiations would not resolve tensions but rather stabilize them at a manageable level, an outcome that might suit Washington and Tehran but risks deepening instability for Gulf states living under the threat of Iranian missiles.

The US-Israeli war against Iran, which began on February 28, has already left Gulf economies reeling from the consequences, from attacks on energy infrastructure to rising export and insurance costs. Alternative export routes raise costs and remain exposed to the same Iranian missile threats.

Diplomats say Gulf officials have urged Washington not to fully lift sanctions on Tehran, arguing for a phased approach to test Iran's behavior. They say the main threats remain unresolved, particularly two issues: missiles capable of hitting Gulf capitals and proxy armed groups used as extensions of the Iranian state.

Across the Arab Gulf region, sentiment toward Washington now ranges from quiet resentment to growing frustration and confusion over unilateral US decision-making.

Abdulaziz Sager, president of the Saudi-based Gulf Research Center, said solving the Iran issue required “a different approach.”

“The US is an integral part of regional security…” he added. “But that doesn't mean acting unilaterally — going full force without involving the region.”

Although Gulf leaders chafe at being sidelined, they acknowledge, both privately and publicly, that US military capabilities continue to influence outcomes due to their unparalleled superiority.

Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, an academic from the United Arab Emirates, said the Gulf Arab states survived the war largely because of their own defense systems and sophisticated weapons provided by the US, such as the THAAD and Patriot air defense systems.

The limit of trust in a single protector

However, while America has proven indispensable, it is also subject to mistakes, Abdulkhaleq Abdulla said, citing what he called underestimating the likelihood of a confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz area.

The US has repeatedly pledged during the war to defend its Gulf allies through cooperation in air and missile defense, naval security, and protecting critical infrastructure.

One of the lessons of the war, Gulf states say, is the limits of trusting a single external protector, said Mohammed Baharoon, director of the B'huth Research Center in Dubai.

Gulf Arab leaders say they have long warned Washington against a conflict with Iran but have remained silent in public since the outbreak of war. Their restraint reflects not just diplomacy but uncertainty about a conflict they are paying for in economic damages and defense costs, but which they do not control.

Now, as Washington and Tehran negotiate, Gulf officials say their exclusion from the talks is no longer a regional issue but a global one, given the international importance of the Strait of Hormuz.