Gulf Arab States Insist on Permanent Iran Missile and Drone Restrictions in Post-War Agreement
Gulf Arab nations are communicating to the United States that any potential deal with Tehran must extend beyond merely ending the current conflict. According to four Gulf sources, such an agreement must include enforceable and permanent curbs on Iran's missile and drone capabilities. Additionally, it must guarantee that global energy supplies are never again "weaponized" as a tool of warfare.
Beyond a Ceasefire: Redefining Regional Security
The critical issue for Gulf policymakers is no longer focused on how the war concludes but on the nature of the regional order that will emerge afterward. Gulf officials, whose countries have endured repeated attacks from Tehran during the U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran, have privately informed Washington that the Islamic Republic has left no diplomatic "off-ramp" available. They emphasize that a simple ceasefire is insufficient.
These officials are advocating for any accord to establish binding restraints on missile and drone assaults targeting energy infrastructure and civilian assets. The deal must also address threats to vital oil and shipping routes, as well as Iran's use of proxy warfare. A fundamental requirement is rewriting the rules of engagement to provide ironclad guarantees that the Strait of Hormuz—a conduit for approximately 20% of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas—will never again be exploited as an instrument of war.
Economic Fallout and Strategic Realignments
The war has inflicted severe damage on Gulf economies, which are heavily dependent on energy exports and tourism. Disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz have driven up global energy prices, disrupted supply chains, and contributed to inflationary pressures. In response, Gulf states are demanding to be integral to the architecture of any post-war settlement.
"The real challenge is not persuading Iran to stop the war, but ensuring the Gulf is not left exposed to the same dynamics that made it possible in the first place," stated Ebtessam Al‑Kerbi, president of the Emirates Policy Centre. Yousef al‑Otaiba, the United Arab Emirates' ambassador to the United States, has characterized the conflict not as a crisis to be frozen but as a test of whether Iran can continue to hold the global economy hostage.
In a column for the Wall Street Journal, Otaiba wrote, "A simple ceasefire isn't enough. We need a conclusive outcome that addresses Iran's full range of threats: nuclear capabilities, missiles, drones, terror proxies and blockades of international sea lanes." He warned that an agreement merely shelving these issues would only postpone the next crisis.
Historical Context and Current Demands
Gulf skepticism is rooted in past experiences. The 2015 nuclear deal capped Iran's uranium enrichment but left Tehran with the capacity to menace the region through missiles, drones, proxy forces, and maritime threats. Gulf states now insist this capability must be eliminated to ensure regional stability. This demand comes after former U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew from the 2015 accord in 2018, labeling it "defective" and "one-sided."
While some Gulf nations like Qatar, Oman, and Kuwait are advocating for a swift end to the war due to economic concerns, others including the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain are prepared to endure further escalation. They refuse to accept a post-war Iran that can still use the Strait of Hormuz as leverage or for what they perceive as blackmail.
Unified Gulf Front and Security Guarantees
The Gulf Cooperation Council, comprising Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, and the UAE, has presented a unified stance against any settlement that neglects Gulf security. Citing over 5,000 missile and drone attacks on energy facilities, civilian infrastructure, and maritime traffic, GCC Secretary‑General Jasem Al-Budaiwi declared that Iran has "crossed all limits."
Abdulaziz Sager, chairman of the Saudi-based Gulf Research Center, emphasized that the Gulf message to Washington is now explicit: any agreement must directly address and guarantee the security of Gulf states. "The United States protects its interests, and Israel's. Now it is our turn to protect and defend ours," he asserted.
Military Considerations and Future Scenarios
Trump has extended his deadline for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz until April 7, while stating that negotiations are progressing "very well." However, an Iranian official has dismissed a U.S. proposal as "one-sided and unfair," demanding the closure of U.S. bases in the Gulf as a precondition for any settlement.
UAE presidential adviser Anwar Gargash noted that Iran's attacks have had "profound geopolitical repercussions," solidifying Tehran as the central threat in Gulf strategic thinking. This has led to deeper security alignment between the UAE and Washington.
Meanwhile, the U.S. is considering deploying ground forces to seize Iran's strategic Kharg Island, which handles 90% of Iran's oil exports. Analysts suggest this would provide significant leverage over Iran's economy. Tehran has warned that such a move would trigger strikes against the "vital infrastructure" of any assisting country.
Some Gulf allies are cautioning against ground operations, fearing an expanded war and severe Iranian retaliation. However, they urge continued degradation of Iran's cruise and ballistic missile capabilities, identified as the primary threat to their nations.
