The Memorandum of Understanding signed between the United States and Iran in June 2026 marked a significant milestone, halting the military conflict and opening a path toward diplomatic resolution. However, the document represents more of a pause than a final peace
Principles of Future Relations: From Containment to a Complex Balance
The foundation for future engagement should be built on principles that world experts have identified as key to Middle East stability, peaceful coexistence, respect for national sovereignty, the rule of international law, and a comprehensive approach to development and security. In practice, however, implementing these principles faces deep-seated contradictions.
For the United States, the memorandum marks a departure from the policy of maximum pressure and containment that had been in place since 1979. The administration has been forced into unprecedented concessions: lifting the naval blockade and all sanctions, ceasing interference in Iran’s internal affairs, and even withdrawing troops from “proximity” to Iran. These steps, driven by domestic pressures—voter fatigue with overseas conflicts and economic risks—are more of a forced compromise than a strategic reassessment of policy.
For the Gulf states, the situation has proven paradoxical. On one hand, they publicly supported the ceasefire to avoid further war-related damage estimated in the tens of billions of dollars. On the other hand, they found themselves facing an agreement that does not address their core interests. As the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) notes, the memorandum repeats the flaws of the 2015 JCPOA by ignoring Iran’s missile program and its support for regional proxy forces, which directly threaten the security of the Gulf states.
Thus, future relations for the Arab monarchies will be built on three fundamental principles:
- Forced Diplomacy with Iran: Despite the loss of trust, engaging Tehran in dialogue remains unavoidable due to its geographic proximity and regional influence.
- Strengthening Their Own Defenses: The war has exposed the vulnerability of critical infrastructure, leading to multi-billion-dollar investments in air defense, cybersecurity, and intelligence.
- “Colder, Tougher, and More Pragmatic” Relations with the U.S.: Trust in Washington as a reliable security guarantor has been undermined. However, there is currently no alternative to the U.S. military presence, so the Gulf states will pursue greater strategic autonomy while maintaining the alliance. As one expert put it, “The new normal will be colder, tougher, and more pragmatic relations.”
The Strait of Hormuz: Toll Passage and a New Reality
The fate of the Strait of Hormuz is the central axis of the entire agreement and the main source of tension. The memorandum essentially creates a precedent that could fundamentally alter the status of this international waterway.
According to the document, Iran pledges to “make every effort” to ensure the safe passage of vessels without imposing fees during the 60-day period. However, the most contentious clause states that after this period, Iran will work with Oman to determine “future navigation management in the Strait of Hormuz and associated costs.” Analysts and Gulf state representatives see this as a veiled authorization for Tehran to introduce tolls for passage, effectively legitimizing its control over the strategic waterway. Iran’s lead negotiator has already stated that the strait “will never return to its pre-war conditions.”
Orient Outlook: Fragile Peace and a Multipolar Order
There is no doubt that the region is entering a phase of fragile and turbulent stability. The most likely scenario includes several key aspects.
First, a “bad peace” as the lesser of two evils. A finalized agreement will most likely be imperfect. It may grant Iran significant economic benefits and ease the sanctions regime, but in return, it is unlikely to provide reliable guarantees against nuclear weapons development or limits on its missile program. As Andreas Krieg of King’s College London noted, this is about “creating a mechanism that makes escalation less attractive.”
Second, Israel’s role as a destabilizing factor. The most significant obstacle to a lasting peace remains Israel, which is not party to the agreement. Israeli leadership, viewing Iran as an existential threat, continues military operations in Lebanon or against Iranian targets, which could derail the fragile process and drag the U.S. back into the conflict. Prime Minister Netanyahu, seeking re-election, appears to have an interest in prolonging the confrontation. This makes Israel the primary force capable of derailing the diplomatic process.
Third, the transformation of regional security. The Gulf states will be forced to adapt to a new reality in which they simultaneously balance between three centers of power: Washington, Tehran, and their own growing defensive needs. The rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which began before the war, is likely to continue, as it serves the interests of stability amid uncertainty. However, this will not be a trusting alliance, but rather a pragmatic modus vivendi. At the same time, Turkey’s role as a regional player capable of countering Israeli hegemony is likely to grow.
Finally, strategic realignment. For the United States, returning to multilateral institutions, particularly the U.N., to ratify a final agreement would be an ironic but necessary step. It is an acknowledgment that Washington alone cannot ensure long-term order in the region. For the Gulf states, the main lesson will be that diplomacy without deterrence is vulnerable, and deterrence without diplomacy does not produce lasting peace. The region’s future will be defined by the ability of all parties to maintain this delicate balance amid growing multipolarity and the constant threat of renewed escalation.
The U.S. ceasefire violation makes this outlook even more ominous. It clearly shows that even signed agreements are no guarantee of peace if one party is ready to use force at the first opportunity. This undermines trust in any future arrangements and makes the achievement of a sustainable peace nearly impossible. Such U.S. actions not only destabilize the region but also confirm criticism of Washington as a party unable to honor its international commitments.
In conclusion, it is worth noting that the region is entering a complex transitional period. The Strait of Hormuz is likely to remain a source of tension rather than just a trade route. U.S.-Iran relations will be built on a foundation of fragile and mutual distrust, with each side trying to maximize its gains. For the Gulf states, this means adapting to a new, less secure reality, betting on resilience and multi-vector diplomacy.
Viktor Mikhin, Writer and Middle East Expert
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
