he Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) recently signed between the United States and Iran is a major development in the current crisis, and it is expected to pave the way for future negotiations and establish a framework for de-escalation. Ever since the MoU was signed, there have been discussions on the nature of conditions outlined in the agreement and questions regarding how much it caters constructively for the interests and concerns of the Gulf states. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
While the Gulf states have broadly welcomed the cessation of hostilities, their responses reflect cautious optimism. Even though they were not directly involved in the war, the Gulf states were among those most targeted by Iran. For them, the primary objective has been to restore regional stability and prevent a wider conflict for which they have continuously used their diplomatic resources. The war showed the extent to which the Gulf states could become direct targets of missile and drone attacks<\/a> from Iran and how the Strait of Hormuz could be weaponized. Recognizing these concerns, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio embarked on a regional tour shortly after the agreement was announced, visiting the UAE, Kuwait and Bahrain while also engaging with other Gulf allies. The timing of the tour was extremely significant. Washington understands that any successful diplomatic process with Iran would require reassurance of regional allies who had been attacked the most by Iran. During his meetings with Gulf leaders, Rubio emphasized continuity in US security commitments. Speaking in Kuwait, Rubio stressed<\/a> that Washington would remain \u201ccompletely aligned\u201d with the Gulf states and would not undermine the security of its Gulf allies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n There are several concerns and apprehensions among the Gulf states in the current scenario. Foremost is whether any future agreement will extend beyond the nuclear issue to address Iran\u2019s ballistic missile and drone program and regional behavior, both of which remain central to the region\u2019s security environment. Equally important is the security of the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran weaponized during the conflict, disrupting one of the world\u2019s most critical maritime trade routes. These issues were flagged during the 2015 nuclear agreement, which addressed the nuclear issue but not Tehran\u2019s regional activities. In the current circumstances, any final agreement that does not consider the security dilemma in the region will face challenges. <\/p>\n\n\n\n As per the MoU, Iran will hold talks with Oman, in consultation with the other littoral states, to define the future governance and maritime management of the Strait of Hormuz in accordance with international law. As of now, there are conflicting<\/a> statements emerging from both Tehran and Washington. It is clear that any change to its existing legal framework would face strong regional and global opposition. Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan recently reiterated<\/a> that the situation must return to the pre-war status quo in tandem with international law and UNCLOS<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The prospect of sanctions relief, access to frozen assets and reconstruction assistance has also paved the way for debates across the region. Many skeptics note that previous periods of engagement did not actually change Iran\u2019s regional behavior. The experience of the JCPOA remains particularly relevant in this regard as Iran continued to increase its military support to proxy groups across the region. Whether the current agreement will produce a different outcome remains to be seen, especially as any sanctions relief mechanism has historically benefitted the IRGC. Although the MoU commits both sides to ending military operations and includes references to Lebanon, it does not contain explicit provisions addressing Iran\u2019s relationships with proxy groups. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Iran\u2019s ballistic missile capabilities remain another key concern, especially after the intensity of attacks it launched targeting civilian assets and infrastructure in neighboring countries. Moreover, the proliferation of conventional weapons, ballistic missiles and the risk of nuclear proliferation remain among the most pressing challenges to regional security. These concerns are particularly significant as Iranian proxies\u2019 military capabilities and activities have had a direct impact on regional stability. The MoU does not explicitly address Iran\u2019s missile program, and as of now, it is unclear to what extent Iran is prepared to give credible guarantees on this issue, especially as the Iranian government already faces internal criticism<\/a> over the current agreement. For regional states that have borne the brunt of attacks from Iran, one of their most immediate sources of insecurity remains outside the scope of the MoU.<\/p>\n\n\n\n