“We don’t know how to make peace.” That is the reality of today’s world. Most of the “peaces” we experienced in the 20th century were military victories that we called peace, but very few peace negotiations have succeeded and been truly implemented.
What we know about achieving it is relatively simple: create the right conditions for each of the parties involved to make it happen. And with a little luck, an acceptable solution will eventually emerge.
For example, if all the countries bordering the Persian Gulf began by meeting every day for fifteen minutes, through diplomats in any country, this could lead within a few days or weeks to the normalization of maritime traffic.
Of course, we’ll need to make sure there are no mines. We don’t know if this is real or true. Mine-sweeping vessels exist in various countries, but experts say that the U.S. ships in the Gulf of Oman are not mine-sweepers and that mine-clearing operations have not yet begun. The Americans could do it, but others could as well.
Day after day, we’ll have to make our case. If Iran claims to be setting up a toll in its waters, the neighboring countries across from it can do the same: Oman, the UAE, etc.
The goal of these daily meetings: any topic. Topics agreed upon unanimously are developed after confirmation by the authorities of each country. If no topic garners unanimous support, we look for one every day: 15 minutes to go over them daily.
Everyone wants to reopen maritime traffic. This topic certainly garners unanimous support, but what causes friction is how to achieve it and how to go about it.
We could start with a shipping lane in Iranian waters and another in the remaining territorial waters. The strait is too narrow for either side to claim the usual territorial limits at sea. In that case, we could split the difference by drawing a line down the middle of the strait.
It would be better if maritime traffic were defined in a rational and mutually agreed-upon manner, but if Iran intends to be the sole legal passage, we will create another one, even if it requires construction work to make it possible.
And then, day by day, a draft agreement may emerge that everyone could implement.
What matters is not that there be a miracle negotiator to make it happen, but that, in the end, all the countries bordering the Persian Gulf recognize that this is their project. Of course, outside parties would be needed to keep the process moving forward every day and to review the various proposals, eliminating any that do not enjoy unanimous support.
It’s only a matter of time: they all want the same thing—namely, to facilitate the maritime traffic that concerns them—the only problem is that the proposed solutions don’t have unanimous support at the moment. That could change.
Even if it takes three months to succeed, the proposed approach can work; we just need someone who knows all the countries bordering the Persian Gulf and who follows up with them every day—not even by phone—until it succeeds. Fifteen minutes a day. It could be more than fifteen minutes if interesting solutions emerge. The immediate challenge is to have, for each of these countries, a reliable news channel with a leader capable of committing within the next 15 minutes.
I don’t know how to do that: I have no permanent diplomatic contacts with those countries. Several countries could do it. Be warned: Europeans are more concerned with their internal disagreements than with a potential agreement among the Persian Gulf countries. They’re capable of spending hours just to come up with a press release. That’s not what we’re asking for. We’re simply asking them to take each country’s proposals into account and present them to the others—not to invent a European regulation. They could act as facilitators, but no one has asked them to propose a solution on behalf of others. The architect is supposed to be able to make proposals, and for now the proposal is very simple: regulate maritime traffic to prepare for the opening.
Naej DRANER
April 25, 2026