Oman Proposes Non-Aggression Pact to De-escalate Gulf Tensions Amidst Regional Hostilities

Amidst escalating regional hostilities, Oman's Foreign Minister, Sayyid Badr Albusaidi, has put forth a proposal for a non-aggression pact involving all eight Gulf littoral states: Iran, Iraq, and the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Speaking at Cambridge University, Albusaidi described this pact as a crucial prerequisite for establishing an inclusive regional security architecture. While acknowledging the inherent difficulties in achieving such an agreement, the proposal gains urgency as a major escalation looms between Iran and the United States, highlighting the region's urgent need for a diplomatic pathway. The current conflict's intractability is partly due to underdeveloped regional security arrangements that have long relied on external powers. An inclusive agreement, therefore, presents a viable way forward.

The Omani proposal draws inspiration from a historical precedent: a 1976 meeting in Muscat where foreign ministers from all eight Gulf littoral states convened to discuss collective security following Britain's withdrawal from the region. This remains the only instance of all eight nations gathering at a single table. Subsequent events, including the Iranian Revolution, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the Iran-Iraq war, led the region towards defensive postures that eventually solidified into exclusionary security frameworks.

For decades, Iran was perceived as a regional threat. However, given its significant coastline, any effective security architecture must include Iran. The concept of a regional security arrangement resurfaced in 2019 when then-Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif proposed a non-aggression pact with Gulf neighbors during a visit to Baghdad, an idea supported by Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Later that year, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani introduced the Hormuz Peace Endeavour (HOPE) at the UN General Assembly, advocating for a non-aggression pact among states bordering the Strait of Hormuz. These initiatives were largely met with skepticism from Gulf nations, who cited Iran's support for armed groups destabilizing the region.

The recent conflict between the US and Iran has revitalized this idea from the Arab side. In May, the Financial Times reported discussions between Saudi Arabia and Iran regarding a non-aggression framework, reportedly modeled on the Cold War-era Helsinki process. This month, Qatar's defense minister called for dialogue between the GCC and Iran, with the participation of Turkiye and Pakistan, aimed at a non-aggression agreement. Oman's current proposal represents the latest development in this regional shift. Muscat's historical role as a mediator and its recent hosting of US-Iran talks in 2025 and February 2026 position it uniquely to facilitate these discussions.

A primary concern regarding a Gulf pact with Iran centers on trust, given Iran's past actions perceived as threatening regional security. Oman itself lodged a formal protest with Iran following drone attacks in July. Consequently, reassurance alone is insufficient; inclusion must entail obligation. Membership in such a pact would need to bind Iran equally with other signatories, providing mechanisms to curb threatening behavior and address legitimate grievances. The pact's foundation must be observable conduct, reciprocal restraint, and clear consequences for violations. Essential commitments would include refraining from the threat or use of force, non-interference in internal affairs, avoiding attacks on civilian infrastructure, ceasing support for cross-border armed groups, and ensuring the protection of navigation.

To foster a workable agreement, a gradual approach to negotiations is recommended. Initial consultations among the eight countries could focus on identifying shared minimum interests, such as territorial security, functional ports, reliable energy exports, civilian protection, and uninterrupted trade. While Oman can facilitate these discussions, each state must represent its own interests, as Muscat's channel to Tehran does not grant it a mandate to negotiate on behalf of its neighbors.

Early talks could lead to limited, reciprocal measures, including military hotlines, protocols for maritime encounters, notification of military exercises, and swift communication following any incidents. Establishing an understanding for the protection of energy facilities, desalination plants, and commercial shipping would serve as an initial test of compliance. The Strait of Hormuz presents a logical starting point, though progress may be challenging. Oman-Iran discussions have already laid the groundwork for a temporary navigation arrangement, but its implementation hinges on compromises between Washington and Tehran, including the reversal of wartime actions that disrupted maritime traffic. Any broader framework must uphold international navigation rights.

The issue of armed groups would be the most complex to resolve. Signatory governments would need to commit to not directing or materially supporting cross-border attacks by such actors, demonstrating compliance through verifiable actions. In areas with contested control, the pact would require procedures for evidence gathering and corrective measures. Compliance with initial measures could pave the way for cooperation on maritime safety, environmental protection, and emergency response. Serious violations should trigger investigations, urgent consultations, and agreed-upon diplomatic consequences, while preserving the right to self-defense.

A regional pact would not resolve all conflicts affecting the Gulf. The United States and Israel, parties to the recent war on Iran, would remain external actors, and the war in Yemen involves entities whose agendas might not be easily constrained by a Gulf arrangement. However, a framework's value is not diminished if it doesn't end every conflict; its success lies in making inter-state conflict among signatories less likely. The pact's credibility will ultimately depend on tangible changes in conduct. A reduction in attacks, functioning crisis communication channels, and demonstrable respect for sovereignty will be more significant than mere signatures. While current hostilities present challenges, they also underscore the high cost of delaying such diplomatic efforts. The primary achievement would be modest yet significant: establishing the principle that disagreements do not grant any state the right to endanger another's security.