Diplomacy and the Rule of Law
Since the outbreak of the US-Israeli-Iranian war, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states have been among the strongest advocates for keeping the window of diplomacy open, even in the darkest of circumstances. Wars, no matter how intense, can never be a permanent substitute for politics, and crises, however complex, must ultimately end at a negotiating table.
However, the call for diplomacy does not, under any circumstances, mean accepting the status quo, nor does it mean transforming the negotiating table into a tool to legitimize actions that violate international law, or into a gateway for granting any party gains it could only obtain through the use of force. Yes, diplomacy is the safe haven for everyone, and indeed a necessity, but it must be a tool for building peace, not a means of entrenching the status quo.
This is precisely why the Gulf position on any dialogue with Iran is so crucial.
No one is against dialogue with Iran, and we are not against establishing normal relations with it. Indeed, the stability of the Gulf cannot be fully realized without a relationship based on mutual respect, good neighborliness, and non-interference in internal affairs. But the real question is not: Should we dialogue with Iran? Rather, it is: What do we want from this dialogue? What must precede it? And what must we refuse to accept as a new reality?
The Strait of Hormuz is an international waterway, and freedom of navigation there is not a concession from Tehran. Its closure must not be turned into a pressure card, nor should its reopening become the price for political understandings.
We must ask: With which Iran are we negotiating? Who holds decision-making power there? And who guarantees the implementation of any agreements reached?
Trust cannot be built while Iranian politics speaks in more than one language: the language of hardliners, the language of diplomats, and the language of armed wings and militias!
We cannot speak of the Strait of Hormuz while ignoring the Bab al-Mandab, where international navigation is under threat, and Houthi attacks—carried out by one of Iran’s proxies—continue against regional states, particularly the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
We in the region do not want a war with Iran... nor do we want to become a party in a conflict between Washington and Tehran, nor do we want to pay the price for a war we did not choose.
At the same time, however, our desire to de-escalate should not be interpreted as a detachment from our national security or strategic interests. We are aware of the geopolitical dimensions of this crisis, and at the same time, we do not want a fragile, temporary peace with short-term objectives. We want genuine peace, normal relations, and a neighborhood based on mutual respect.
But the path to that begins in Tehran itself. We want Iran to be a normal neighboring state that respects its neighbors and is respected by them, recognizing that the security of the Gulf cannot come at the expense of the security of its own states, and that regional stability cannot be based on the logic of armed influence or the closure of international waterways.
