{
  "id": 9487015,
  "title": "A new Gulf-Iran relationship should separate rivalry from confrontation",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/09/24/a-new-gulf-iran-relationship-should-separate-rivalry-from-9487015",
  "topic": "world",
  "section": "World",
  "published": "2026-09-24T04:00:00.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "The National UAE",
    "slug": "the-national-uae",
    "url": "https://www.thenationalnews.com/opinion/comment/2026/09/24/gulf-iran-us-war-economy-trade-geography-strait-of-hormuz/"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "For years, Gulf states have grappled with the challenge of containing Iran's risks without allowing rivalry to escalate into open conflict. Iran's nuclear program, ballistic missiles, ties to regional armed groups, and the uncertainty surrounding the Strait of Hormuz have long shaped Gulf security calculations. The solution lay in finding a balance between deterrence and dialogue, with the US as the primary external security partner. However, the ongoing war demonstrated the fragility of this arrangement, as missiles, drones, and shipping disruptions made it increasingly difficult to manage the Iranian challenge through deterrence alone.\n\nThe previous policy's tendency to treat Iran as a monolithic issue proved ineffective, as Iran's role varied depending on the context. It was both a military power, a nuclear actor, and a key player in the Strait of Hormuz, as well as a regional neighbor with economic ties. These distinct aspects could not be addressed through identical strategies. While air defense might prevent missile strikes, it could not solve the future of navigation through Hormuz. Similarly, economic relations could not deter attacks, and military power alone could not establish functional maritime rules or maintain economic ties.\n\nThe next phase of Gulf policy may need to adopt a more selective approach, being firmer in certain areas while remaining more open in others. Confrontation in one domain should not dictate the entire relationship. The focus should be on preventing one dispute from consuming everything else, rather than aiming for rapprochement or assuming that decades of rivalry can be resolved through dialogue. Military tensions may persist, but political channels should remain open to prevent the entire relationship from being overwhelmed by conflict.\n\nDuring the war, the separation between military tensions and other aspects of the relationship eroded. Iran's conflict with the US and other actors spilled over into the Gulf, burdening the region with part of the costs of a conflict it neither initiated nor desired. This issue should be a central focus in any future Gulf-Iran dialogue: how can Iran be prevented from shifting the costs of its wars onto the Gulf states? The American military presence in several Gulf states adds to the complexity, as Tehran may find it challenging to distinguish between hosting US forces and participating in US military operations during wartime. However, Gulf states cannot simply accept the reverse argument that American forces on their territory justify Iranian attacks.\n\nThe ambiguity surrounding this issue has become too costly. This is not a call for Gulf neutrality, nor does it require a complete reevaluation of existing alliances. However, clearer limits are essential. States must clarify what constitutes a direct party to a war, when the use of a military base crosses the line into participation in hostilities, and which civilian and economic facilities should remain untouched. Defining these parameters is crucial to minimizing the risk of future crises reproducing the same dangers.\n\nSimilarly, the issue of the Strait of Hormuz has evolved beyond the question of whether ships can pass through it. It now involves determining who sets the rules, what rights littoral states can exercise, and whether one side can impose new conditions on commercial traffic. While temporarily opening the strait may resolve immediate disruptions, it does not guarantee that the issue will not recur. A more durable solution would require practical rules, such as communication between naval forces, incident response procedures, protection for commercial vessels, and greater clarity on what constitutes hostile action.\n\nThe success of any future agreement on Hormuz will ultimately depend on its implementation. The real test will be whether ships continue to be detained, navigation rules are respected, and the agreement remains intact during significant incidents. Moreover, Gulf states should consider what Iran stands to lose from returning to escalation. Deterrence typically revolves around punishment, but states may also be deterred by the interests they wish to protect.",
  "summary": "For years, Gulf states have faced a familiar problem: how to contain the risks posed by Iran without allowing rivalry to turn into open war. The sources of tension were never difficult to identify. Iran’s nuclear programme, ballistic missiles, ties to armed groups across the region and the uncertainty surrounding the Strait of Hormuz have shaped Gulf security calculations for decades. The…",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 2,
    "also_reported_by": [
      {
        "outlet": "The National Business",
        "title": "A new Gulf-Iran relationship should separate rivalry from confrontation",
        "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/09/24/a-new-gulf-iran-relationship-should-separate-rivalry-from",
        "published": "2026-09-24T04:00:00.000Z"
      }
    ]
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}