A Gulf non-aggression pact could be the path forward
Oman's Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Albusaidi has called for a non-aggression pact among all eight Gulf littoral states as regional tensions escalate between Iran and the United States.
Proposing a non-aggression pact amid regional hostilities may seem premature. Yet agreements to stop war matter most when distrust is the deepest. The key question is whether regional governments can agree on rules that make their disagreements less destructive.
In a recent lecture at Cambridge University in the UK, Oman's Foreign Minister called for a non-aggression pact among all eight Gulf littoral states: the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council along with Iraq and Iran. He described it as the essential prerequisite for an inclusive regional security architecture.
Historical Precedent
The Omani proposal is anchored in a historic precedent from November 1976, when the foreign ministers of all eight Gulf littoral states met in Muscat to pursue collective security after Britain's withdrawal from the region. This remains the only time all eight have sat at one table.
Subsequent events including the Iranian Revolution, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iran-Iraq war pushed the region toward defensive arrangements that hardened into exclusion. Given that Iran holds roughly half the Gulf coastline, any security architecture without it is structurally unsound.
Recent Revival
The idea was revived in 2019 when then Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif proposed a regional non-aggression pact with Gulf neighbours during a visit to Baghdad, which Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov endorsed. That September, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani launched the Hormuz Peace Endeavour (HOPE) at the UN General Assembly.
Gulf reactions were largely dismissive, citing Iranian support for armed groups threatening regional stability. However, the US-Israeli war on Iran has revived the idea on the Arab side, with Saudi Arabia reportedly discussing a non-aggression framework modelled on the Helsinki process during the Cold War.
It cannot be implemented unless Washington and Tehran compromise, including by reversing wartime actions that halted maritime traffic.
Building Trust Through Obligation
The strongest objection against a Gulf pact with Iran is distrust of a state whose conduct has threatened regional security. Oman itself formally protested to Iran after drone attacks targeting Musandam and Al Wusta in July.
A pact must rest on observable conduct, reciprocal restraint and consequences for violations. At minimum, it would need commitments against the threat or use of force, interference in internal affairs, attacks on civilian infrastructure and support for armed groups conducting cross-border attacks, alongside protection of navigation.
Negotiations could adopt a gradual approach, starting with identifying minimum shared interests like territorial security, functioning ports, reliable energy exports, civilian protection and uninterrupted trade. Initial talks should yield limited, reciprocal measures such as military hotlines, rules for maritime encounters, and notification of exercises.
Path Forward
Hormuz is the obvious starting point for cooperation, though progress could be hard. Oman-Iran talks have already outlined a temporary navigation arrangement, but any wider framework must respect international navigation rights.
Armed groups represent the hardest issue to resolve. Governments should undertake neither to direct nor materially support cross-border attacks by such actors, and demonstrate compliance through verifiable steps. Where control is contested, the pact would need procedures for establishing evidence and requiring corrective action.
Compliance with initial measures could open cooperation on maritime safety, environmental protection and emergency response. While a regional pact would not settle every conflict touching the Gulf, it could make it harder for any disagreement to escalate into war among its signatories.
Related
