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). 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)