The US-Iran memorandum postpones the hardest questions. The Gulf cannot afford to do the same

A preliminary memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran was agreed on Thursday (28 May), emerging as one of the most concrete diplomatic developments of the war so far. Writing for Arab News, Hassan Al-Mustafa reported that the memorandum's primary provisions focus on the consolidation of a renewable truce, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the removal of naval mines, the allowing of the passage of commercial ships and oil tankers without fees, and a gradual easing of economic restrictions on Iran (note, it postpones the negotiations on the nuclear issue entirely). The memorandum, importantly, is not a finalized peace deal but rather a genuine attempt to establish a safe transition from war to the negotiating table. And hence, as reported by Hassan Al-Mustafa, it leaves some obstacles along the way: whether Iran‘s opening of the Strait will be full and instant or gradual and conditional; whether sanctions relief will precede or follow nuclear commitments; whether Iran will commit to restraining and holding back its allied groups in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen; and whether US President Trump will succeed in separating the Iran track from his desire to expand the Abraham Accords, especially given that Saudi Arabia has coupled any recognition of Israel to a credible road map toward Palestinian statehood. Another factor defining the success of the memorandum of understanding comes from Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s participation in a group call with Trump and the leaders of Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain, Jordan, Egypt, Türkiye, and Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, but reflects Riyadh’s determination that an understanding with Tehran must be embedded in an integrated regional security framework, beyond a bilateral deal between Washington and Tehran alone.

Despite positive diplomatic movement, the broader strategic picture is a more difficult reality. Writing for the Arab Center in Washington, Charles W. Dunne argued that the war had substantially weakened the Pax Americana, which was the US-led security structure built to stabilize the Middle East from the 1990s onwards. This comes as Washington cannot claim a decisive victory, with damage to US military facilities in the Gulf reportedly more significant than previously acknowledged. Israel has used the cover of war to devastate Gaza and consolidate its hold in the West Bank, while progress toward the Abraham Accords now appears almost dead. China, by contrast, has emerged as an unexpected beneficiary following Trump's visit to Beijing, which was described by Dunne as having an air of humility with the portrayal of China as Washington's strategic equal. However, whether Beijing can capitalize effectively on its diplomatic gains remains in a realm of uncertainty, but for many in the region, there now may be a welcome alternative to American leadership.

The war has also continued an accelerated strategic recalibration between Europe and the Gulf. Writing for the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, Camille Lons made a direct parallel with Europe’s post-2022 geopolitical awakening, with GCC states now facing a similar dilemma of relying on a security partner that is detrimental to survival, yet increasingly perceived as a liability. France dispatched the Aircraft carrier "Charles de Gaulle" and Rafale jets to the region; the UK reinforced its regional bases and prepared air patrols over the Strait. Most European governments, however, distanced themselves from US offensive operations entirely, prompting Washington to threaten scaling back its NATO commitment. France and the UK have since promoted an alternative defensive maritime coalition for the Strait, purposefully excluding the United States. However, challenges remain, Ukraine will continue to dominate European strategic priorities, and Gulf states may ultimately continue to prioritize Washington for as long as American Military capabilities remain irreplaceable and indispensable.

Iran has been utilizing weaknesses in Gulf AI infrastructure, which has opened a reality that neither international law nor corporate risk models were adequately prepared for. Mohammed Soliman, a senior fellow for the Middle East Institute, documented that Iranian drone strikes on Amazon data centers in the UAE and Bahrain were designed to make global capital nervous about the Gulf’s stability. The strategy resulted in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar collectively planning eight to ten gigawatts of AI-related computational capacity, backed by sovereign capital with generational time horizons that, as Soliman argued, do not get deterred by a drone getting through air defences. UAE ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba made Emirati intentions plain at a Washington conference in early May, describing the UAE as all-in on American tech. Now, despite this clear positioning from many of the Gulf States, Iran has been documented to have begun to reframe the Strait of Hormuz as a digital chokepoint, as submarine cables carry about ninety-nine percent of intercontinental data and an estimated ten trillion dollars in financial transactions daily. On 22 April, the Tasnim News Agency (directly linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guard) published a detailed map of undersea cables in the Arabian Gulf, floating the idea of extracting protection fees from operators. The IRGC has since said that foreign operators must receive permits and pay fees to maintain cables in Iranian waters. The real strategy, as argued by Zaid M. Belbagi for Arab News, is not to cut the cables but to hold the repair of infrastructure hostage. On 12 March, Alcatel Submarine Networks suspended maintenance across the Arabian Gulf, placing the 2xAfrica Pearls cable, which was meant to connect nine countries this year, on an indefinite hold. Iran has spent longer than any other state learning to live without open connectivity; now, this asymmetry is what the region must plan for.

Source: This briefing was first published Arabia Concise on 2 June 2026. It was prepared by Santiago Ferbel-Azcarate, with support from the commonspace.eu editorial team, drawing on reporting from Arab News (Riyadh), the Arab Center (Washington D.C.), Middle East Institute (Washington D.C.), and the Middle East Council on Global Affairs (Doha). 

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
COP 17 in Armenia

COP 17 in Armenia

Armenia is currently hosting the COP17 conference of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which began earlier this week (19 October) and will run until 30 October, bringing around 15,000 participants from 196 different countries to Yerevan. At a leaders' summit held as part of COP17, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan expressed realistic ambitions: “We are halfway towards achieving these goals (Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework), and we must honestly acknowledge that we are not yet moving in the right direction. Our task now is not to make new promises, but to fulfil the commitments we have already made.” Pashinyan pointed towards Armenia's own records, noting that the whitefish stock in Lake Sevan has increased substantially in the last ten years. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze also addressed the summit, with Turkiye sending its agriculture minister. However, there were no reports of Azerbaijani representatives attending. The conference has given Yerevan a valuable international platform, yet the absence of Azerbaijan is likely to be read as a sign that the peace process in the South Caucasus has not yet been translated into wider regional cooperation. The leaders' summit was opened by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who stressed that hosting the conference was a great honour for Armenia. He expressed hope that it would 'be productive and contribute to protecting our planet's biodiversity'. 'We – the citizens of Armenia, the government, state authorities and local governments – owe a debt to our nature,' the prime minister said. He noted that the international community had already developed the concept of 'living in harmony with nature’ and adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in 2022, setting out goals and specific targets to be achieved by 2030. 'We are halfway towards achieving these goals, and we must honestly acknowledge that we are not yet moving in the right direction. Our task now is not to make new promises, but to fulfil the commitments we have already made,' Nikol Pashinyan said. The COP17 conference is expected to adopt a declaration at leaders' level. More than 30 documents are scheduled for discussion. If approved, the commitments set out in them will become legally binding on countries that are parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.”
Editor's choice
News
Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Finland’s decision to buy one million landmines creates a serious contradiction in the policy of the European Union, and is symbolic of a bigger dilemma facing European countries as they get used to the need to acquire “hard” power to face an increasing threat from Russia. Finland is seeking to acquire one million anti-personnel mines at a cost of 100 million euros. Finland, together with Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia last year abandoned the Ottawa agreement, the international framework that bans the use of anti-personnel mines, which the EU had been instrumental in establishing and supporting. All five countries cite the threat from Moscow as the reason. Colonel Riku Mikkonen of the Army Command told Finland’s national news agency STT that officials are now gathering information from suppliers regarding the deal, the AFP news agency reports. Helsinki would like domestic manufacturers to supply the mines, with contracts signed by the end of 2027 and production up and running by 2028. “It would be useful in many ways if Finnish companies produced the anti-personnel mines in Finland,” Mikkonen said. About half a dozen Finnish firms qualify, he told STT. “However, at this stage, buying the mines from abroad is not totally ruled out,” he added. LANDMINES PROVIDE THE EU WITH BOTH A CONTRADICTION, AND A DILEMMA Eliminating landmine contamination worldwide is one of the EU’s main soft power postures, and it basks in its record as the biggest funder of anti-landmine action in the world. But the fact that 5 of its 27 member states  have now left the Ottawa Treaty dents the EU moral high ground. It is a contradiction that is too big and important to be ignored. It also presents the European Union with a deeper dilemma. The threat from Russia is changing what the EU has stood for decades, namely a force for good able to mobilise its considerable soft power for the greater good of humanity. How the Union will implement this change will define its future. In the meantime landmines have not become any less lethal, benign, or unimportant. They remain in many parts of the world a major threat to life, an impediment to prosperity, and a potential trigger to further conflict. The 22 EU members states that still adhere to the Ottawa treaty must regroup, and be more assertive in their quest against anti-personnel land mines. All the reasons why they supported the Ottawa treaty in the first place still exist. The message must be clear: NO TO LANDMINES!

Popular

Editor's choice
Interview
Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Today, commonspace.eu starts a new regular weekly series. THURSDAY INTERVIEW, conducted by Lauri Nikulainen, will host  persons who are thinkers, opinion shapers, and implementors in their countries and spheres. We start the series with an interview with Murad Muradov, a leading person in Azerbaijan's think tank community. He is also the first co-chair of the Action Committee for a new Armenian-Azerbaijani Dialogue. Last September he made history by being the first Azerbaijani civil society activist to visit Armenia after the 44 day war, and the start of the peace process. Speaking about this visit Murad Muradov said: "My experience was largely positive. My negative expectations luckily didn’t play out. The discussions were respectful, the panel format bringing together experts from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey was particularly valuable during the NATO Rose-Roth Seminar in Yerevan, and media coverage, while varied in tone, remained largely constructive. Some media outlets though attempted to represent me as more of a government mouthpiece than an independent expert, which was totally misleading.  Overall, I see these initiatives as important steps in rebuilding trust and normalising professional engagement. The fact that soon a larger Azerbaijani civil society visits to Armenia followed, reinforces the sense that this process is moving in the right direction." (click the image to read the interview in full)