The fragile ceasefire between the United States and Iran continues to hold by a thread as President Donald Trump extends the truce while positioning additional naval forces nearby. Pakistani diplomats have played a central role in keeping the sides talking, yet the overall American approach mixes diplomatic overtures with military posturing that keeps the region on edge. Gulf countries that faced direct Iranian retaliation during the fighting have the highest stakes in whatever settlement emerges, yet they remain largely on the sidelines of the main negotiations. Their inclusion could prove decisive in transforming a temporary pause into something more durable.
Recent clashes exposed deep Gulf vulnerabilities. Iranian missiles and drones reached targets in several Arab states, while disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz rattled energy markets and local economies. Although these nations hosted U.S. assets and coordinated on defensive responses, their preference for de-escalation never fully translated into influence over the broader strategy. Living next door to Iran means they cannot treat any agreement as abstract. Their security concerns deserve a prominent place at the table if the goal is genuine stability rather than another fragile truce.
The Record of Arab Intermediaries
Arab governments have built a credible record as effective intermediaries over time. Oman has quietly kept lines open to Tehran for decades, while Qatar has helped broker hostage releases and ease flashpoints. These same partners contributed meaningfully to recent Gaza ceasefires and hostage deals that counted among the Trump administration’s clearer successes.
The 2023 restoration of Saudi-Iranian diplomatic ties, arranged with Chinese support, offered further proof that direct engagement between longtime rivals can reduce tensions and limit proxy fighting across the region. Iran’s participation in an Arab-Islamic summit hosted by Qatar later demonstrated that constructive exchanges remain possible even after sharp disagreements.
Pakistan’s Mediation and the Gulf Gap
Pakistan’s mediation efforts deserve recognition for halting immediate bloodshed, with Egypt and Turkey providing useful support. However, the near absence of Gulf voices in shaping the endgame stands as a notable gap. Earlier nuclear talks deliberately limited participants to major world powers to avoid complicating the agenda. The war has changed those calculations.
Any lasting arrangement must now address not only enrichment limits but also ballistic missiles, support for non-state actors, and reliable maritime security guarantees. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Jordan, and Egypt bring firsthand knowledge that distant negotiators cannot match.
Toward a Multilateral Framework
An informal multilateral framework that folds these Arab partners into the process alongside existing mediators could help bridge that divide. Such a setup would allow those most exposed to articulate core demands and help design compliance mechanisms rooted in regional realities rather than external assumptions. It might also lay groundwork for a broader understanding resembling a non-aggression pact tailored to local threat perceptions.
Past exclusion of neighborhood stakeholders often produced agreements that failed to account for ground-level dynamics. The current moment offers a chance to correct that pattern.
The Necessity of Local Buy-in
Without meaningful Arab buy-in, even well-crafted deals risk eroding quickly once implementation begins. The Gulf states have both the incentive and the relationships necessary to help monitor and reinforce commitments over time. Bringing them in more fully could also ease domestic pressures in capitals wary of repeated cycles of confrontation that harm investment plans and economic diversification goals.
For Washington, the payoff lies in arrangements that carry greater local legitimacy and therefore stand a better chance of enduring. The recent conflict made clear that regional ownership is no longer optional if the aim is lasting peace instead of managed hostility.
Original analysis inspired by Brian Katulis from Majalla. Additional research and verification conducted through multiple sources.
