Could a Gulf aggression pact open a path forward for regional security?
Why inclusion matters
A non-aggression pact may seem premature during regional hostilities, but agreements to prevent war can matter most when distrust is high. The central challenge is finding shared rules that reduce the harm caused by disagreements.
Iran has long been viewed by some regional governments as a threat. Yet the country has roughly half the Gulf coastline, making a security framework that excludes it structurally unsound. Any pact would need to impose obligations on Iran as well as other members.
In September, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani presented the Hormuz Peace Endeavour, or HOPE, at the UN General Assembly. It proposed a non-aggression agreement among Hormuz states, but Gulf governments largely dismissed it, citing Iranian support for armed groups.
Oman’s diplomatic role
This month, Qatar’s defence minister called for dialogue between the Gulf Cooperation Council and Iran, with Turkiye and Pakistan involved, toward a non-aggression agreement. Oman is positioned to facilitate talks, but its channel to Tehran does not give it authority to negotiate for neighbouring countries.
Consultations among the eight countries could begin by identifying shared priorities, including territorial security, functioning ports, dependable energy exports, civilian protection and uninterrupted trade. Each government would represent itself in the discussions.
The article notes that all eight previously sat together at one table, but does not date that meeting. It says the Iranian Revolution, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iran–Iraq war later helped push the region toward defensive arrangements that became exclusionary.
Building confidence gradually
Negotiators could start with limited, reciprocal steps, such as military hotlines, rules for maritime encounters, advance notice of exercises and rapid communication after attacks. An understanding to protect energy facilities, desalination plants and commercial shipping could provide an early test of compliance.
Armed groups would be among the most difficult issues. Governments could pledge not to direct or materially support cross-border attacks by such groups, while showing compliance through verifiable steps.
Where control is disputed, the pact would need ways to establish evidence and require corrective action. Reassurance alone would not suffice; membership would have to bring enforceable responsibilities and a means to address legitimate grievances.
Limits and potential value
A regional pact would not resolve every conflict connected to the Gulf. The United States and Israel, described as parties to this year’s war on Iran, would remain outside the agreement; Yemen’s war also involves actors a Gulf arrangement might not readily bind.
Still, a framework could have value without ending every war. Its narrower aim would be to make it more difficult for conflicts to become wars among the pact’s signatories.
Current hostilities make negotiations harder, while underscoring the cost of delay. A first meaningful outcome could be agreement that no state’s disagreement with another justifies putting that country’s security at risk.
Key points
- Oman could facilitate talks, while each of the eight countries represents itself.
- A proposed pact would include Iran and require obligations from every signatory.
- Early measures could cover military hotlines, maritime encounters and protection of energy facilities.
- The agreement would not resolve every conflict, but could limit escalation among its members.