A Pause, Not Peace: Why Gulf States Doubt Iran Will Honor a New Ceasefire Deal

As the US and Iran move toward a new ceasefire agreement, Gulf states remain skeptical. From the Strait of Hormuz to nuclear negotiations and regional proxies, history suggests Tehran's behavior—not its promises—will determine whether peace lasts.

By Najwa AlSaeed

AI generated image

Why Gulf States Remain Skeptical of a New US-Iran Ceasefire Deal

Gulf capitals are watching the US-Iran talks with cautious skepticism, not the kind of optimism you might expect from senior officials saying a deal is likely. As the United States and Iran edge toward a memorandum of understanding ahead of the G7 meeting next week, the region is holding its breath. The proposed agreement would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, lift the U.S. naval blockade, extend a 60-day ceasefire covering Lebanon, and restart nuclear negotiations.

But history has taught us a brutal lesson: the Iranian regime is not trustworthy, and it has never held back from betraying promises when ideology or leverage calls for it.

Tehran wants to stop the war, but it has not shown it is ready to change the behavior that led to it. A ceasefire may stop another round of confrontation, but stability will not follow if Iran keeps managing crises through rockets, proxies, maritime bullying, and coercion of neighbors. The Gulf states do not oppose political solutions; they have pushed for de-escalation, shipping protection, and energy stability for years. But the crisis begins when a ceasefire becomes an opportunity to regroup without changing behavior. Then stopping the fight is just a temporary freeze, not a path to real settlement.

Iran's Regional Strategy: Proxies, Pressure, and Escalation Across Multiple Fronts

The latest escalation between Iran and Israel shows the fronts are not separate, as Tehran sometimes suggests. An Israeli strike on Beirut's southern suburbs, an Iranian retaliatory strike, a new Israeli response, and Houthi movement are all connected. Lebanon, the Red Sea, the Gulf, and the Strait of Hormuz are part of a single strategic framework.

These are all cards in a political mindset that calms when it needs to, and escalates when it sees advantage at the negotiation table. Iran uses calm as a tool, not as a principle.

The Lessons of the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal

We need to remember 2015, not for a long comparison, but for its warning. The focus was narrowly on the nuclear program while Iran's hostile regional behavior continued in multiple directions. Pressure tools expanded, militant presence grew, and interference in other countries remained part of Iranian policy.

Any new Iran nuclear deal that does not place this behavior at the heart of the solution will only give the crisis more time and will not open a serious path to regional stability.

How Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE View the Iran Ceasefire Differently

Gulf media outlets reflect each country's different priorities while sharing skepticism about Iran.

Saudi Arabia: Containment and Strategic Engagement

Saudi Arabia's Al Arabiya and Arab News emphasize security and defense. Al Arabiya focuses on nuclear constraints and Hezbollah, warning Iran must dismantle proxies for long-term containment, not just a ceasefire. Arab News highlights infrastructure protection and warns of Iranian attacks on desalination and power plants.

Saudi Arabia's engagement with the Houthis and Hezbollah reflects its complex strategy, balancing public anti-proxy rhetoric with calculated border management in Yemen and backchannel negotiations. Its ties with Hezbollah also serve as leverage in broader regional dynamics, including concerns about potential Israel-Lebanon agreements that might shift the balance without Saudi input.

Qatar: Mediation and De-escalation

Qatar's Al Jazeera takes a more diplomatic approach, focusing on the ceasefire covering Lebanon and humanitarian access, emphasizing de-escalation as befits Qatar's mediation role and ties to Tehran.

UAE: Stability, Trade, and Conditional Optimism

The UAE's media express cautious optimism rooted in economic needs, highlighting Dubai-Iran trade restoration, oil price stability through the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and protection of the investment climate and expatriate welfare.

However, this optimism is conditional, not blind trust. The UAE insists diplomacy loses meaning under threat, demands Iran reset its behavior based on sovereignty and good neighborliness, and warns the Gulf must not become a scapegoat in Iran's calculations with Washington and Tel Aviv.

Dr. Anwar Gargash emphasized that compensation must be paired with new deterrence rules so targeting Gulf states carries real political, security, and legal costs.

While Saudi media prioritize long-term containment alongside calculated engagement for national interest reasons, Qatar prioritizes mediation and de-escalation, and the UAE prioritizes pragmatic stability and trade, all three agree on one point: the ceasefire is a step, not a guarantee, and Iran must change its hostile behavior or the Gulf will respond collectively.

Why Gulf Security Is Increasingly a Collective Responsibility

The past weeks have shown repeated attacks on Kuwait and Bahrain are no longer met with scattered responses. Attacks on a civilian airport and vital facilities have reaffirmed that Gulf security is not managed by each country alone.

An attack on any member tests the entire system. Every time Tehran treats Gulf capitals as separate files, the need for a collective political and security stance strengthens, one that links sovereignty protection to preventing repeated attacks.

The Gulf is learning that security must be shared, not individual.

Even if pressures impose a temporary ceasefire, real calming will not happen as long as escalation moves between multiple arenas. Stability will not begin until Iran moves from the Revolutionary Guard's logic of managing crises through proxies and pressure on neighbors to the logic of a normal state built on good neighborliness.

A ceasefire that does not reverse Iran's hostile behavior will not end the crisis. It will be a short pause before a new round.

The Next 60 Days Will Determine Whether the Iran Ceasefire Holds

The next 60 days will reveal whether diplomacy succeeds or if Iran's ideological commitments clash with economic pressures again.

The deal offers Iran no cash to the regime, only limited unfrozen funds for humanitarian purchases, with every transaction approved by the United States, making it "pay for performance," not "pay to play."

All enriched uranium—60%, 20%, and 3.67%—must be removed from Iran or diluted to unusability. The only sanctions relief is a temporary 60-day oil sales window that snaps back if no deal is reached.

Nuclear Verification and Sanctions Relief

If this limited relief arrives, Iran may show restraint. If not, it could resume limited attacks while keeping the Strait of Hormuz open as a hedge strategy.

The Gulf, especially the UAE, will push for strict verification and enforcement, balancing pragmatism with security guarantees. Gulf leaders understand that without real nuclear concessions and meaningful oversight, this ceasefire will be short-lived.

Will Iran Restrain Its Regional Proxies?

There is also the question of whether Iran will honor the Lebanon ceasefire. Hezbollah operates with significant autonomy, and including it in the deal is uncertain. Iran's domestic politics and proxy networks remain outside Washington's direct control.

The memorandum's structure allows both sides to claim progress without resolving every issue. Trump's emphasis on "good faith" conditionality means sanctions relief could stall if Iran fails to meet benchmarks.

What the Gulf States Expect From the Agreement

This is a practical, conditional framework aimed at ending the war and stabilizing markets.

The core value for the Gulf is reopening the Strait of Hormuz, protecting critical infrastructure, and restoring stability to global energy markets. For Washington, it secures nuclear constraints without military escalation. For Iran, it offers economic relief and limited sanctions easing.

Trust the Deal, Not the Regime

The real question is whether Iran will change its behavior.

If oil exports resume and sanctions ease within 60 days, restraint is likely. If not, Iran may resume limited attacks while keeping Hormuz open. The UAE has made clear that the Gulf has changed, and its countries will not accept becoming a pressure space in Iran's calculations with Washington and Tel Aviv.

History warns us: trust the deal, not the regime.

The next 60 days will be the test.

Dr. Najwa AlSaeed is an Assistant Professor at City University Ajman and contributes as a writer and researcher to several prominent publications. She can be contacted at: a.najwa@cu.ac.ae