By Samia Nakhaul
DUBAI, April 20 (Reuters) – Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s warning has crystallized fears among Gulf states that reopening the Strait of Hormuz could be the most important thing Iran-U.S. talks can achieve, which they see as crucial.
Officials and analysts expect the next round of talks in Islamabad to focus not on Iran’s missiles or regional proxies, but on uranium enrichment limits and how to handle Iran’s gains in the Straits, the world’s most important oil shipping route.
Gulf officials have warned that this approach would undermine Iran’s grip on Middle East energy supplies while leaving countries outside formal decision-making to face the energy and security consequences, while prioritizing global economic stability, by managing rather than profiting from it.
Gulf sources say US-Iran diplomacy is now focused less on rolling back Iran’s missile program and more on enrichment levels and tacitly acknowledging Tehran’s gains in Hormuz, which carries a fifth of global oil supplies.
Although talks on enrichment have stalled, with Iran rejecting both zero enrichment and demands to ship its stockpiles abroad, Gulf officials say the shift in priorities is itself problematic.
“At the end of the day, Hormuz will be a red line,” said a Gulf source close to government circles. “It wasn’t a problem before. It is now. The goal posts have moved.”
There was no immediate response from Gulf Arab governments to requests for comment on the issues raised in this article.
Iran’s threat to ship in the Gulf during the war has broken a long-standing embargo around the strait, making its blockade a realistic lever in negotiations for the first time.
Hormuz’s central role was made clear by Medvedev, Russia’s vice-chairman of the Security Council, in a post on X on April 8.
“It is not clear how a ceasefire between Washington and Tehran will happen,” Medvedev said. “But one thing is certain – Iran has tested its nuclear weapons. It’s called the Strait of Hormuz. Its potential is immense.”
This comment presented Hormuz as an advantage enabling him to raise costs and shape regulations without crossing the nuclear threshold.
Hormuz is a ‘golden asset’, say Iranian security sources
Iranian security officials privately echo that view, describing the strait not as an accident but as a long-prepared instrument of resistance.
“Iran has been preparing for the scenario of closing the Strait of Hormuz for years, planning every step,” a senior Iranian security source said. “Today it is one of Iran’s most effective tools – a form of geographic advantage that acts as a powerful deterrent.”
The source described the strait as a “golden, priceless asset rooted in Iran’s geography – one that the world cannot remove precisely because it runs through Iran’s location.”
Another Iranian source, close to the Revolutionary Guards, went further, suggesting that the longstanding taboo surrounding the use of Hormuz had now been broken.
The source described Hormuz as a sword “drawn from its sheath” that the US and regional states cannot ignore, which could leverage the region against external powers.
What worries the Gulf Arab states most, analysts say, is that Iranian missiles, drones and proxies have repeatedly attacked their territory, with talks increasingly being built almost exclusively around Hormuz because its global economic influence undermines Gulf security concerns.
At its core, the Hormuz dispute is less about who sets the rules of the road than who controls the Strait, Gulf sources say, reflecting a broader shift away from fixed international norms toward a power-based order.
This exposes the imbalance between those who define the rules and those who suffer the consequences for breaking them, said Ibtesam Al-Katebi, chairman of the Emirates Policy Centre.
“What is taking shape today is not a historic settlement,” al-Katebi told Reuters, “but the deliberate engineering of a lasting conflict.”
“Who suffers from missiles and proxies?” she added. “Israel, and especially the Gulf states. What would be a good deal for us would be (addressing) missiles, proxies — and Hormuz. And they don’t seem to care about missiles or proxies.”
Caution on sanctions relief
Analysts have warned that such an approach to negotiations would not stabilize tensions to a manageable level, an outcome that might suit Washington and Tehran but risk destabilization for Gulf states vulnerable to missiles.
The US-Israel war over Iran, which began on February 28, has already absorbed the consequences for Gulf economies, from attacks on energy infrastructure to rising export and insurance costs. Alternative trade export routes increase costs and remain exposed to the same Iranian missile threats.
Diplomats say Gulf officials have urged Washington against full sanctions relief, advocating a phased approach to testing Iran’s behavior. They say key threats remain unaddressed, particularly missiles capable of hitting Gulf capitals and Iran’s armed proxies being used as extensions of the Iranian state.
In the Arab Gulf, sentiment toward Washington now ranges from quiet discontent to growing frustration and bewilderment at the unilateral American decision.
Abdulaziz Seger, president of the Saudi-based Gulf Research Center, said a “different approach” was needed to address the Iran issue.
“America is part of regional security…” he added. “But that doesn’t mean acting unilaterally — going completely without engaging the region.”
While Gulf leaders remain on the sidelines, they acknowledge privately and publicly that US military capabilities continue to shape outcomes through their overwhelming superiority.
UAE academic Abdulkhaleq Abdullah said the Gulf Arab states have largely avoided war because of their security and state-of-the-art US weapons such as the THAAD and Patriot air defense systems.
Relying on a single defender has its limits, say analysts
Although the U.S. was invincible, it was wrong, Abdullah said, in what he called an underestimation of the potential for a confrontation in Hormuz.
The US has repeatedly pledged to protect its Gulf allies in times of war through air and missile defense support, naval security and the protection of critical infrastructure.
One lesson of the war, the Gulf states have said, is the limits of dependence on a single external protector, said Mohammed Bahroun, director of the Dubai-based research center Bahuth.
Gulf Arab rulers say they have long warned Washington against conflict with Iran, but have remained publicly silent since the war began. Restraint reflects not only diplomacy but the uncertainty of conflict that they pay for but do not control in economic losses and defense costs.
Now, as Washington and Tehran negotiate, Gulf officials argue that exclusion from the talks is no longer a regional issue but a global issue, given Hormuz’s international importance.
(Additional reporting by Parisa Hafezi in Dubai; Writing by Samia Nakhoul, Editing by William McLean)
