Jono Maryono
The Gulf region exhaled a collective, albeit cautious, sigh of relief late on Tuesday as Iran and the United States announced a two-week truce, temporarily halting over a month of escalating hostilities and acrimonious rhetoric. This diplomatic maneuver, occurring mere hours after President Donald Trump issued stark warnings of "wiping out an entire civilization" and Tehran threatened further retaliatory actions across the Gulf and beyond, marks a critical juncture in a conflict that has severely disrupted global energy markets and heightened geopolitical tensions.
The eleventh-hour agreement came just 90 minutes before a self-imposed deadline by President Trump, who had previously declared that Iran must fully reopen the vital Strait of Hormuz or face severe repercussions, including being "sent back to the stone ages." The truce, contingent upon the resumption of maritime transit through the strategically crucial waterway, which normally handles approximately 20% of the world’s oil and natural liquefied gas shipments, provides a crucial, albeit fragile, window for de-escalation. Iran had previously brought traffic through this chokepoint to a near standstill in response to a series of joint US-Israeli attacks that commenced on February 28th.
In a separate development, President Trump characterized a 10-point proposal submitted by Iran as a "workable basis on which to negotiate." According to Iranian state media, a key tenet of this proposal involves Iran retaining control over the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi further clarified that passage through the strait during the two-week truce period would only be permitted "in coordination" with the Iranian military.
With negotiations slated to commence in Islamabad, Pakistan, over the weekend, regional analysts and Gulf nations alike are expressing apprehension. There is a palpable concern that the United States, perceived as eager for a swift political victory and a de-escalation that can be presented as a success, might concede to terms that grant Iran a degree of influence or control over the Strait of Hormuz. This potential scenario, where optics might be prioritized over the long-term security and economic realities of the Gulf, is a source of significant unease.
Hesham Alghannam, a Saudi Arabia-based scholar at the Malcolm H Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center, articulated this sentiment, stating, "There is a quiet but palpable concern that President Trump, eager for a quick political victory, could tolerate some Iranian leverage over the strait in exchange for a fragile truce, prioritizing optics over Gulf realities."
Timeline of Escalation and Diplomatic Breakthrough
The period leading up to the truce was marked by a rapid and alarming escalation of tensions:
- February 28th: Joint US-Israeli attacks are launched against Iranian assets, initiating a cycle of retaliatory actions.
- Early March: Iran begins to significantly impede maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, causing disruptions to global oil and gas supply chains. Diplomatic channels begin to show signs of strain.
- Mid-March: Rhetoric intensifies, with both the US and Iran issuing increasingly aggressive statements. President Trump imposes a deadline for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
- Late March (leading up to Tuesday): Concerns mount across the Gulf region as missile and drone attacks attributed to Iran become nearly daily occurrences. The GCC countries issue a series of statements expressing alarm.
- Tuesday Evening: President Trump announces the agreement on a two-week truce, citing Iran’s 10-point proposal as a basis for negotiation. The Strait of Hormuz remains a central point of contention.
- Wednesday Morning: Despite the truce announcement, reports emerge of further Iranian missile and drone launches targeting the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, underscoring the fragility of the agreement.
GCC Nations Voice Concerns and Demand Clarity
In a series of coordinated statements, the six member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) collectively sounded the alarm over the near-daily Iranian missile and drone attacks that have targeted their territories. While generally welcoming the ceasefire, the GCC nations uniformly emphasized the imperative for the Strait of Hormuz to be fully reopened and stressed that any agreement must result in a permanent and long-term resolution to the ongoing hostilities.
The alternative, where a potentially weakened but unyielding Iranian leadership retains leverage over the strait, is viewed as a "nightmare scenario" by energy-rich Gulf countries. This scenario would leave them perpetually vulnerable to disruption and economic coercion. Alghannam further elaborated on the implications, stating, "It makes future war more likely over time, while forcing the GCC to live under Iranian strategic pressure indefinitely. That suspended tension is what makes it so unacceptable."
Uncertainty Surrounds the Strait of Hormuz
Adding to the regional anxiety, President Trump made remarks early on Wednesday that caused considerable surprise, suggesting the possibility of a joint US-Iran venture to establish tolls within the Strait of Hormuz. "It’s a way of securing it – also securing it from lots of other people," Trump stated. The White House subsequently clarified that while the President had considered the idea, his immediate priority remains "the reopening of the strait without any limitations, whether in the form of tolls or otherwise."
The prospect of Iran retaining any form of control over the Strait of Hormuz, even through a joint venture or a de facto acknowledgment of its influence, is a deeply concerning one for the GCC states. The strait is not merely a vital shipping lane; it is an economic artery whose security is inextricably linked to the stability and prosperity of the entire region. Any arrangement that compromises its free navigation risks creating a precedent for future blackmail and instability.
Furthermore, the lingering capability of Iran to launch precise strikes, even after purported military setbacks, remains a significant worry. Despite US claims of having destroyed 90% of Iran’s firing capacity, the recent attacks on critical energy infrastructure and the continued launches post-ceasefire announcement demonstrate that Iran’s ability to project force remains a potent threat. This highlights the inherent risk of ending the conflict without a definitive resolution to Iran’s offensive capabilities.
GCC Diplomatic Efforts and UN Stalemate
Throughout the recent conflict, GCC countries have largely maintained a defensive posture, refraining from direct military engagement. However, nations like Bahrain and the UAE have adopted increasingly assertive rhetoric, warning that their patience is not "limitless."
Gulf-wide concerns over Iran’s potential future influence over the Strait of Hormuz were underscored by a Bahrain-sponsored resolution at the UN Security Council on Tuesday. The resolution sought authorization for countries to undertake defensive missions to ensure the continued openness of the maritime chokepoint. The bid received support from Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan. However, the resolution was vetoed by Russia and China, a move that has drawn sharp criticism.
Mohamed Abushahab, the UAE’s permanent representative to the UN, expressed his disappointment, stating, "No country should have the power to shut down the arteries of global commerce. The Security Council had a responsibility to act, and it failed. The Strait of Hormuz cannot become a bargaining chip for Iran, nor a lever in wider global politics."
The failure of the UN Security Council to act decisively is seen by many in the region as a missed opportunity to establish a clear international mandate for the freedom of navigation in this critical waterway. This diplomatic setback places greater onus on regional actors and the upcoming bilateral negotiations between Iran and the US.
Broader Implications for Regional Stability and Economy
A further escalation of hostilities or a resolution that leaves the Strait of Hormuz vulnerable could have devastating consequences for the GCC economies. Decades of effort to establish the region as a safe hub for finance, tourism, and culture have already been dented by the ongoing conflict. Analysts suggest that the potential economic fallout was a primary driver behind the GCC countries’ stepped-up diplomatic efforts in the lead-up to the current crisis.
However, regional officials have consistently warned that Iran should not misinterpret their current restraint as a sign of weakness. If Tehran and Washington fail to forge a solution that guarantees the return of unimpeded navigation in the Gulf, the regional calculus could shift dramatically.
Hamad Althunayyan, a political analyst and professor at Kuwait University, emphasized this point: "The Gulf will leave no stone unturned if Iran continues to take the path of aggression. The Gulf expects its interests to be represented, and included, in any deal with Iran."
The Nuclear Sticking Point
Even with the current truce in place and negotiations on the horizon, guarantees of a permanent ceasefire remain elusive. Beyond the immediate concerns over maritime security, a fundamental sticking point in US-Iran relations continues to be Iran’s nuclear program. President Trump has consistently cited the dismantling of this program as a key justification for US actions.
While Iran has indicated a willingness to discuss limitations on its nuclear activities, it has consistently ruled out complete dismantling, a demand that remains a firm "red line" for the United States. White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt reiterated this position, stating, "The president’s red lines, namely the end of Iranian enrichment in Iran, have not changed." This unresolved issue adds another layer of complexity to the upcoming negotiations and casts a shadow over the long-term prospects for regional stability. The success of the current truce and the subsequent negotiations will hinge on finding common ground on issues far more profound than just the immediate control of a vital shipping lane.
