The weakness of Naej DRANER’s role stems from the lack of a reliable intermediary and feedback mechanism.

The security-policy solution architect defines the solution, presents it to stakeholders, and refines it as necessary.

In the case of the “Persian Gulf Council,” there was a feeling that some ideas were partially adopted, without it being possible to determine who was actually informed and at what level. There was no reliable feedback to gauge reactions and refine the proposals. It appears that one or two countries were informed of the project, but not all of them.

It happens—unfortunately quite often—that the intermediary ends up seeing himself as the architect and takes advantage of his position as an intermediary to modify the proposals on his own and appear as the sole actor. When this happens, N.D. can no longer do anything, neither as an architect nor as an advisor. In short, he is bypassed and no longer has any control over the project.

In other words, N.D.’s role can only be properly fulfilled in close collaboration with the president of the Persian Gulf Council and its secretary. If they never come into being, nothing will ever happen.

Consulting services are never submitted in advance to any government other than those involved with the target organization. For example, this would be a matter between me and the Persian Gulf Council (if the latter had been established), including the cost of the consulting services (I would need to go on-site and assess the situation quickly, but I have no budget to do so).

Ideally, there would be an association of diplomats capable of relaying and reporting back on ideas and reactions.

This has not prevented advice from being strictly and correctly implemented in the past, but that is not the case here.

June 25, 2026

Naej DRANER (naej.draner@gmail.com)