A warning from former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has intensified concerns among Gulf nations. They worry that reopening the Strait of Hormuz might be the maximum achievable outcome of US-Iran negotiations, falling far short of the comprehensive de-escalation they deem crucial.

Officials and analysts anticipate that the upcoming round of talks in Islamabad will increasingly focus on limits to Iran's uranium enrichment and how to address Tehran's control over this vital global oil shipping route, rather than on Iran's missile program or regional proxy forces.

Gulf officials warn that this approach to negotiations does not aim to dismantle Iran's influence but to manage it, potentially solidifying Iran's control over Middle Eastern energy supplies. While the US prioritizes global economic stability, it is excluding the nations that would bear the most direct energy and security consequences from formal decision-making.

Gulf sources indicate that the current focus of US-Iran diplomacy has shifted from containing Iran's missile program to limiting uranium enrichment levels and tacitly accepting Tehran's grip on the Strait of Hormuz, a passage for approximately one-fifth of the world's oil supply.

Despite a continuing deadlock over uranium enrichment—with Iran refusing both a complete halt to enrichment and the shipment of nuclear materials abroad—Gulf officials state that the shift in negotiation focus is itself alarming.

"In the end, the Strait of Hormuz becomes a red line," said a Gulf source close to government circles. "This was never an issue before, but now it's a central topic; the negotiation objectives have changed."

Governments of Arab Gulf states have not responded to the issues raised in this report.

During recent conflicts, Iran has repeatedly threatened Gulf shipping, breaking a long-standing taboo and, for the first time, making the blockade of the strait a tangible bargaining chip in negotiations.

In an April 8 post on social media platform X, Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Russia's Security Council, explicitly highlighted the Strait of Hormuz's pivotal role.

"It is still unclear how the Washington-Tehran ceasefire will develop," Medvedev stated, "but one thing is certain—Iran has tested its 'nuclear weapon,' which is the Strait of Hormuz, with its inexhaustible potential."

These remarks position the Strait of Hormuz as a lever for Iran to raise the costs of confrontation and set rules without crossing the nuclear threshold.

Iranian security officials privately share this view, describing the strait not as an emergency measure but as a long-prepared deterrent tool.

"Iran has prepared for the scenario of blocking the Strait of Hormuz for years, with every step meticulously planned," a senior Iranian security source said. "It is now one of Iran's most effective tools—a geopolitical advantage that constitutes a powerful deterrent."

The source described the strait as a "golden, priceless asset stemming from Iran's geographical location, precisely because it relies on Iran's position, making it impossible for world powers to take away."

Another source close to Iran's Revolutionary Guards was more direct, stating that the long-standing taboo around using the Strait of Hormuz as leverage has been broken.

This source likened the Strait of Hormuz to a "drawn sword" that the US and regional countries cannot ignore, providing the region with leverage against external powers.

Analysts note that what most alarms Arab Gulf states is that despite repeated attacks on the region by Iran's missiles, drones, and proxies, the negotiations are almost exclusively centered on the Strait of Hormuz due to its global economic impact, marginalizing the Gulf states' security concerns.

Gulf sources say the core of the Hormuz dispute is not who controls the strait, but who sets the rules of passage, reflecting a shift in the international order from fixed rules to a power-based framework.

Ebtesam Al-Ketbi, President of the Emirates Policy Center, stated this exposes an imbalance between those who set the rules and those who bear the consequences when rules are broken.

"What is forming now is not a historic reconciliation," Al-Ketbi said, "but a deliberately designed, sustainable conflict."

"Who is bearing the brunt of the missiles and proxy attacks?" she added. "It's Israel, and especially the Gulf states. For us, an ideal agreement would simultaneously address missiles, proxies, and the Strait of Hormuz. But currently, the US side seems entirely unconcerned about missiles and proxies."

Analysts warn that this negotiation approach appears aimed not at easing tensions but at stabilizing the situation at a manageable level. This outcome might serve US and Iranian interests but would leave Gulf states under missile threat mired in long-term instability.

The US-Israel conflict with Iran that erupted on February 28 has already caused ripple effects for Gulf economies, including attacks on energy facilities and rising export and insurance costs. Alternative trade routes are not only more expensive but remain equally vulnerable to Iranian missiles.

Diplomats say Gulf officials have urged the US not to lift all sanctions on Iran comprehensively, advocating instead for a phased approach to test Iran's actions. They argue that core threats remain unaddressed, particularly missiles capable of hitting Gulf capitals and armed proxies that Iran uses as extensions of the state.

Across the Arab Gulf, attitudes towards US unilateral decision-making are shifting from quiet dissatisfaction to increasing disappointment and bewilderment.

Abdulaziz Sager, Chairman of the Gulf Research Center based in Saudi Arabia, stated that resolving the Iran issue requires a "new way of thinking."

"The US is an indispensable part of regional security..." he added, "but that doesn't mean it can act unilaterally—pushing forward comprehensively without incorporating regional states."

Although Gulf leaders are frustrated by their marginalization, they acknowledge privately and publicly that US military power, with its unmatched advantages, continues to dominate the course of events.

Emirati scholar Abdulkhaleq Abdulla noted that Arab Gulf states have largely preserved themselves during the conflict, relying heavily on their own defense systems and advanced US-provided air and missile defense systems like THAAD and Patriot.

Abdulla stated that while the US is indispensable, it has also miscalculated, for instance by underestimating the potential for confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz.

During the conflict, the US repeatedly pledged to defend its Gulf allies through air and missile defense cooperation, maritime security, and protection of critical infrastructure.

Mohammed Baharoon, Director of the B'huth Center for Research and Studies in Dubai, said one lesson Gulf states are drawing from this conflict is the limitations of relying on a single external protector.

Rulers in the Arab Gulf say they had repeatedly warned the US against conflict with Iran but maintained public silence after it erupted. This restraint stems from both diplomatic considerations and the uncertainty of the conflict—they bear the economic losses and defense costs without controlling the situation.

Now, with US-Iran talks underway, Gulf officials believe that, given the Strait of Hormuz's international importance, their exclusion from negotiations is no longer just a regional issue but a global one.