Gulf Worries U.S.-Iran Talks May Cement Tehran’s ‘Golden’ Grip On Hormuz

DUBAI, April 20 (Reuters) — Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s warning clarified fears among Gulf states that reopening the Strait of Hormuz might be the most achievable in Iran-U.S. talks and could fall short of a broader de-escalation goal they see as vital.

Officials and analysts expect the next round of talks in Islamabad to increasingly focus not on Iran’s missiles or regional proxies but on its uranium enrichment limits and how to address Iran’s influence over the Bosphorus, the world’s most critical oil shipping route.

Gulf officials warn that this approach risks entrenching Iran’s dominance over Middle East energy supplies by managing rather than eliminating its influence, while prioritizing global economic stability while leaving countries most exposed to energy and security consequences outside formal decision-making processes.

Gulf sources say U.S.-Iran diplomacy is now focused less on rolling back Iran’s missile program and more on enrichment levels and a tacit acknowledgment of Tehran’s influence over Hormuz, which carries about a fifth of global oil supplies.

Although talks on enrichment have stalled because Iran has rejected demands for both zero enrichment and sending its stockpiles abroad, Gulf officials say the shift in priorities is itself troubling.

“At the end of the day, Hormuz will be the red line,” said a Gulf source close to government circles. “It wasn’t a problem before. Now it is. The goalposts have been moved.”

There was no immediate response from Gulf Arab governments to requests for comment on the issues raised in this article.

Iran’s threats to Gulf ships during the war broke long-standing taboos around the Bosphorus and made the disruption a realistic lever in negotiations for the first time.

The central role of Hormuz was clearly stated by Russian Security Council deputy chairman Medvedev in a post published on X on April 8.

“It is not clear how the ceasefire between Washington and Tehran will result,” Medvedev said. “But one thing is certain: Iran has tested its nuclear weapons. It’s called the Strait of Hormuz. Its potential is inexhaustible.”

This statement used Hormuz as leverage, allowing Iran to raise costs and shape the rules without crossing the nuclear threshold.

Iranian security officials privately echo this view, describing the Strait not as a contingency but as a long-prepared deterrent tool.

“Iran has prepared for years for a scenario that involves closing the Strait of Hormuz and planned every step,” a senior Iranian security source said. “It is one of Iran’s most effective tools today, a form of geographic influence that acts as a powerful deterrent.”

The source described the Bosphorus as “a golden, priceless asset rooted in the geography of Iran – an asset that the world cannot fully take from there because it flows through Iran’s position.”

A second Iranian source close to the Revolutionary Guard went further, suggesting that the long-standing taboo regarding the use of Hormuz has now been broken.

This source described Hormuz as an “unsheathed” sword that the United States and regional states cannot ignore, giving the region an advantage over external powers.

What concerns Gulf Arab states most, analysts say, is that negotiations are increasingly centered almost entirely around Hormuz due to its global economic influence, marginalizing the Gulf’s security concerns, as Iranian missiles, drones and proxies repeatedly attack their territory.

Gulf sources say the Hormuz dispute is, at its core, less about who controls the Strait and more about who sets the rules of passage, reflecting a broader shift from fixed international norms to power-based arrangements.

Ebtesam Al-Ketbi, head of the Emirates Policy Centre, said this revealed the imbalance between those who define the rules and those who suffer the consequences when the rules are broken.

“What is taking shape today is not a historical solution, but a deliberate engineering of sustainable conflict,” Al-Ketbi told Reuters.

“Who suffers from missiles and proxies?” he added. “Israel, and especially the Gulf states. It would be a good deal for us to appeal to missiles, proxies, and Hormuz. And they don’t seem to care about missiles or proxies.”

Analysts warn that such an approach to talks would stabilize tensions at manageable levels rather than resolve them; This outcome may please Washington and Tehran, but it carries the risk of deepening instability for the Gulf countries living under missile threat.

The US-Israeli war against Iran, which started on February 28, caused Gulf economies to absorb many negative effects, from attacks on energy infrastructure to increased export and insurance costs. Alternative trade export routes increase costs and remain exposed to the same missile threats from Iran.

Diplomats say Gulf officials have called on Washington to fully ease sanctions, advocating a phased approach to test Iran’s behavior. They say key threats are not being addressed, particularly missiles that can hit Gulf capitals and Iran’s armed proxies used as extensions of the Iranian state.

Across the Arab Gulf, sentiment toward Washington now ranges from quiet resentment to growing frustration and confusion with U.S. unilateral decision-making.

Abdulaziz Sager, head of the Saudi-based Gulf Research Center, said addressing the Iran issue requires a “different approach.”

“The United States is part of regional security…” he added. “However, this does not mean acting unilaterally or acting fully without involving the region.”

While Gulf leaders bristle at being sidelined, they acknowledge, both privately and publicly, that U.S. military capabilities continue to shape outcomes through their unique superiority.

UAE academic Abdulkhaleq Abdulla said Gulf Arab states survived the war largely due to their own defense and advanced US-supplied weapons such as THAAD and Patriot air defense systems.

Abdulla said that although America is indispensable, it can be wrong and talked about, in his words, underestimating the possibility of a conflict over Hormuz.

During the war, the United States pledged to defend its Gulf allies through air and missile defense cooperation, maritime security, and protection of critical infrastructure.

Muhammad Baharoon, director of Dubai-based research center B’huth, says one of the lessons of the war for Gulf countries is that there are limits to relying on a single external protector.

Gulf Arab rulers say they have long warned Washington against conflict with Iran but have remained publicly silent since the war began. The restraint reflects not just diplomacy but also uncertainty about a conflict they cannot control but for which they pay the price in economic damage and defense costs.

Now, as Washington and Tehran negotiate, Gulf officials argue that, given the international importance of Hormuz, their exclusion from the talks is no longer a regional issue but a global one. (Additional reporting by Parisa Hafezi in Dubai; Writing by Samia Nakhoul, Editing by William Maclean)