A warning by former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has sharpened concerns among Gulf states that renewed US–Iran negotiations could end up legitimising Iran’s leverage over the Strait of Hormuz rather than reducing regional tensions.
Gulf officials and analysts say the upcoming round of talks, expected in Islamabad, is increasingly focused on nuclear enrichment limits and managing Iran’s influence over Hormuz ,the world’s most critical oil shipping route rather than addressing broader security threats such as missiles and regional proxy forces.
A warning by former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has crystallised fears among Gulf states that reopening the Strait of Hormuz may become the most tangible outcome of US–Iran talks, short of the broader de-escalation they see as essential.
Officials and analysts expect the next round of negotiations, due in Islamabad, to prioritise uranium enrichment caps and mechanisms to manage Iran’s strategic leverage over Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of global oil flows, rather than confronting its missile programme or regional network of allied groups.
Gulf sources argue this shift risks entrenching Iran’s influence over global energy supply chains by managing rather than dismantling its leverage effectively prioritising global market stability while sidelining the security concerns of states most exposed to escalation.
According to Gulf officials, diplomacy has drifted away from dismantling Iran’s missile capabilities and proxy networks and is instead narrowing in on enrichment levels and informal acceptance of Tehran’s ability to disrupt maritime traffic through Hormuz.
While negotiations remain deadlocked over enrichment with Iran rejecting zero enrichment and the removal of its stockpiles Gulf voices say the very framing of the talks signals a strategic recalibration they view with concern.
“At the end of the day, Hormuz will be the red line,” one Gulf source said, noting that what was once a peripheral issue has now become central to the negotiation framework.
Iran’s wartime threats against Gulf shipping have already broken long-standing taboos, making disruption of the Strait a more explicit bargaining tool in international diplomacy.
The strategic importance of Hormuz was highlighted by Medvedev, who described it as a form of “nuclear level leverage” for Iran, despite not involving actual nuclear weapons.
Iranian officials, speaking privately, have echoed this framing, describing the Strait as a long-prepared instrument of deterrence and a “geographic asset” that gives Tehran enduring strategic advantage.
A senior Iranian security source said Iran has “prepared for years” for scenarios involving closure of the Strait, calling it one of the country’s most effective deterrent tools.
A second source close to the Revolutionary Guards described Hormuz as a “drawn sword” a latent threat that shapes regional calculations even without being used.
Gulf analysts warn that while missiles, drones, and proxy forces have repeatedly destabilised the region, current negotiations appear increasingly centred on Hormuz due to its immediate global economic consequences.
Ebtesam Al-Ketbi of the Emirates Policy Center said the evolving approach risks institutionalising instability rather than resolving it, describing it as “a deliberate engineering of sustainable conflict.”
She argued that Gulf states continue to bear the consequences of regional escalation while having limited influence over the negotiation framework shaping those risks.
Analysts say such an approach may stabilise tensions at a manageable level for Washington and Tehran, but could leave Gulf states exposed to persistent insecurity.
The recent war between Israel and Iran, which began in February, has already strained Gulf economies through disrupted shipping, rising insurance costs, and repeated threats to energy infrastructure.
Diplomats say Gulf states have urged Washington to avoid sweeping sanctions relief for Iran, instead favouring gradual steps tied to behavioural change, warning that missile capabilities and proxy networks remain largely unaddressed.
Across the Gulf, frustration is growing over what is seen as unilateral US decision making in negotiations that directly affect regional security.
Saudi based Gulf Research Center chairman Abdulaziz Sager said the Iran file requires a more inclusive framework, warning that regional security cannot be shaped without regional input.
While Gulf states remain heavily dependent on US military support including missile defence systems and naval protection analysts say recent events have highlighted the limits of reliance on a single external security guarantor.
UAE academic Abdulkhaleq Abdulla said the war demonstrated both the effectiveness and limitations of US-backed defence systems, noting that Gulf states still bear economic and strategic costs they cannot fully control.
Analysts such as Mohammed Baharoon of Dubaibased B’huth argue that one of the key lessons from recent escalation is the need for diversified security arrangements rather than dependence on a single power.
As negotiations continue, Gulf officials increasingly argue that their exclusion from talks on Hormuz is no longer a regional concern alone, but one with global consequences given the Strait’s role in international energy flows.
Goodness Anunobi
