GCC Must Take Greater Diplomatic Role Amid Iran Conflict, Experts Say At Abu Dhabi Forum

(MENAFN- Khaleej Times) Gulf states must take a more active diplomatic role in resolving the Iran conflict and work with a wider group of global powers instead of waiting for Washington to find a solution, experts said during a panel at Hili forum.

The call came as regional and international experts warned that the conflict has exposed vulnerabilities in the Gulf's security architecture, with the Strait of Hormuz, Iran's growing ties with Russia and the future of the US role in the region emerging as key concerns.

Recommended For You

“The Gulf, Europe, Asia needs to escalate horizontally in diplomacy,” said Douglas Silliman, former US ambassador to Iraq and president of the Arab Gulf States Institute.

Stay up to date with the latest news. Follow KT on WhatsApp Channels.

He urged Gulf countries to work more closely with Japan, South Korea, Australia, China, Latin America and Africa, saying the consequences of a prolonged conflict would extend far beyond the region.

“You can't let America solve the problems, particularly one that it caused,” Silliman said.

He stressed that the US military presence would continue to be important for Gulf security, saying there was currently no other power capable of providing the same level of military defence.

But the region, he said, should exercise greater diplomatic agency and build relationships with other global powers.

Dr Paul Salem, non-resident senior associate in the Middle East Programme at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the future Gulf security architecture would likely be more diversified.

“The relationship with the US will remain very strong, but the umbrella proved to be full of holes,” he said.

For GCC countries, that means strengthening regional coordination while developing wider diplomatic, economic and technological partnerships, particularly as the conflict highlights the vulnerability of key infrastructure and shipping routes.

Hormuz at the centre

The Strait of Hormuz emerged as one of the biggest challenges facing the region, with experts warning that any prolonged disruption would have consequences for global trade and energy markets.

Salem cautioned that even an agreement to reopen the waterway could create a new strategic dilemma if Tehran sought greater influence over maritime traffic.

“Yes, the Strait will be open, but under Iranian influence and control,” he said.

This came as how Gulf countries could use diplomacy to push for freedom of navigation while avoiding a wider military confrontation.

Silliman said the issue should not be left to the US alone, pointing to the large number of countries whose economies depend on the waterway.

The conflict, he said, could have repercussions for agriculture in Africa and Latin America, Asian trade and global oil markets if it continues for years.

Iran's power centre shifts

While the Gulf considers how to respond, the conflict appears to have changed the balance of power inside Iran, according to Dr Mahmood Sariolghalam, non-resident fellow at the Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research and professor of international relations at Loyola Marymount University.

Iran's traditional hybrid system, combining clerical and military-security power, has shifted decisively towards the latter following the war, he said.

“I think after this war, we have shifted completely to the military-security complex, and the clerical community are fundamentally sitting on the sidelines,” Sariolghalam said.

He identified the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the head of its intelligence sector and the speaker of parliament as among the key forces shaping Iranian policy.

The change has also altered Tehran's priorities the war, around 25 to 30 per cent of Iran's statecraft was focused on economic, commercial and trade issues, Sariolghalam said. Now, national security and preserving the existing system dominate.

“Economic and commercial issues are on the sidelines also at this point,” he said.

Russia's growing role

Sariolghalam said Moscow had become Iran's key strategic partner, providing support in intelligence, navigation and military capabilities.

“Russia is about 80 per cent of the support that Iran gets in its regional performance. China, I would say 20 per cent,” he said.

China's relationship with Iran was more transactional, he said, while Russia had developed a strategic partnership with Tehran.

He said Russian assistance included intelligence, navigation and missile and drone targeting, adding that Iran could potentially sustain the war for another five to six months based on its existing capabilities and external support.

“As long as Putin is the president of Russia, I think Iran will have stable, solid external support to maintain itself and also conduct itself in the region,” he said.

But that support could become less certain if the Russia-Ukraine war reaches a settlement, with Sariolghalam saying Iran could then face pressure in its relationship with Moscow.

Iran under economic pressure

Despite the military and economic pressure, the panellists did not predict an imminent collapse of Iran's political system.

Sariolghalam said Iran had suffered significant economic damage, citing five million jobs lost over the past year, a 6 per cent contraction in GDP and a 12 per cent fall in industrial output.

“Iran is facing an economic dilemma with social, political consequences,” he said.

Salem, however, said an entrenched political system could survive prolonged economic hardship and conflict, particularly if it was willing to use force to maintain control.

The bigger uncertainty, he said, was how Iran's population would respond over time.

“Revolts happen. Uprisings happen. Regimes do fall. Can we predict it? Absolutely not,” Salem said.

Sariolghalam said Tehran's immediate strategy appeared to be survival rather than a comprehensive agreement with the US.

“I don't see a comprehensive agreement on the horizon either,” he said, predicting transactional arrangements in the coming months.

Israel's calculations differ

The experts also highlighted a major difference between Israel's calculations and those of the Gulf states and the US.

Salem said Israel's focus was primarily on its borders, Iran's nuclear programme and Tehran's ability to project power against it, while the US and Gulf states have much greater concerns about the economic and global consequences of a prolonged disruption to Hormuz.

From Israel's perspective, he said, the war had already represented a major strategic achievement, including bringing the US into a full-scale confrontation with Iran.

For Tehran, meanwhile, the conflict could be viewed as one battle in a much longer confrontation rather than a war that must end in a comprehensive settlement.

Diplomacy remains key

Despite the differences between the US, Israel, Iran and the Gulf, the panellists agreed that diplomacy would remain central to any effort to end the conflict.

GCC states, they said, should engage Tehran collectively while using economic interdependence and relationships with other global powers to build leverage.

Sariolghalam stressed that engagement with Iran should not be left to individual countries.

“It should be a collective engagement with Iran,” he said.

He pointed to Saudi-Iranian and Egyptian-Iranian economic ties as potential tools for influencing Tehran's regional posture.

But Salem cautioned that diplomacy alone would not fundamentally change Iran's security calculations.

“Diplomacy with Iran is always useful and necessary,” he said, but added that it was unlikely by itself to change Tehran's view of its security or its regional role.

ALSO READ

'Ball is in Iran's court': GCC chief says Tehran must rebuild Gulf trust after attacks Iran attacks 6 months on: 'Promises offer no protection when missiles are in the air' Iran miscalculated by targeting UAE, researcher says Region cannot endure 'no war, no peace' indefinitely, says UAE top diplomat

MENAFN08092026000049011007ID1111636130