Eight months of mutual failure

The US and Israel have sunk Iran's navy but cannot achieve regime change, destroy its nuclear program, or reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Iran survives bombing but cannot break the American blockade.

Both sides prefer stalemate

Neither the US nor Iran will make necessary concessions. Both maintain the delusion of achievable victory and justify continued fighting by the pain inflicted on adversaries.

A face-saving solution emerges

Gulf Arab states could broker a ceasefire. Iran lifts Strait of Hormuz restrictions in exchange for economic relief. The US lifts its blockade. Neither side makes direct concessions to the other.

What each side avoids

The US keeps its maximum pressure campaign and does not lift it. Iran does not agree to limit its nuclear program. Both claim victory without painful compromises.

Gulf states have skin in the game

The Gulf depends on oil and gas exports through the Strait of Hormuz. Continued conflict threatens their economic and political models. Their diversification efforts are vulnerable to Iranian attacks.

Why direct deals fail

The US and Iran have a historical template for agreements. But Trump wants sweeping concessions Iran won't give. Iran wants benefits matching its June memorandum of understanding with Washington.

The Strait of Hormuz mechanism

Ships would use Iran's preferred traffic pattern but Iran would not formally control the passage. This acknowledges Iran's role without setting unacceptable precedents for international commerce.

Deterring future US attacks

Gulf states would assure Iran they would use leverage with Washington to deter future military campaigns. In May, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia paused US access and overflight approvals over escort concerns.

Trump's exit strategy

Trump could exit the war claiming he saved the world from high energy prices without making economic and nuclear concessions like the Obama administration did in the 2015 agreement.

Iran's regional leverage

If Israel or the US undermines the arrangement, it accelerates Washington's credibility decline with Gulf partners. The US already stressed these relationships by going to war with Iran without their request.

Iran's future security calculus

Once the war ends, the next Israeli request for an American attack on Iran faces a president weighing global economic instability against Israeli security. The threat may not outweigh economic risk.

Regional talks already underway

On October 26, Saudi officials traveled to Tehran to meet Iranian counterparts alongside leaders from Pakistan and Turkey. Gulf countries had planned a September 14 meeting in Salalah, Oman, that never happened.

The cohesion problem

Gulf states must overcome internal divisions, particularly between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. They must isolate the Iran issue from larger bilateral tensions and coordinate on redlines.

The Houthi complication

Saudi Arabia holds Iran accountable for Houthi attacks because Iran built the group's capabilities and provides technical and material support. But Iran does not control the Houthis directly.

Iran's Iraqi militia card

Iran could credibly promise Riyadh that Tehran-backed Iraqi militias will stop attacking Saudi Arabia. Iraqi militia attacks took the kingdom's valuable East-West oil pipeline offline on September 10.

Why this deal might fail

Iran might conclude control of the strait is its best security guarantee. The US might struggle to acknowledge the war will not achieve promised outcomes. A ceasefire leaves underlying issues unresolved.

The economic deadline

Strategies to blunt global oil and gas shortage consequences will likely wear thin in 2027 as governments deplete strategic reserves, Chinese demand increases, and alternative supply routes come under Iranian attack.

The least bad outcome

A comprehensive Iran deal is not feasible today. A Gulf-brokered outcome on the Strait of Hormuz may be the only way to stop a mutually hurting stalemate poised to last years.

“the bystanders that have already lost the most will need to save the warring parties from themselves”