Reference Documents
Both governance are chaotic. This reality must be taken into account in future negotiations.
The current Iran-U.S. negotiations cover too many issues. At least one of them will stall the rest. The recommendation is to remove some of the issues from the Iran-U.S. negotiations and transfer them to the countries bordering the Persian Gulf.
Not all countries bordering the Persian Gulf will likely want to join the Persian Gulf Council immediately, but they must have a place at the table, and all eight are ex officio members—with the hope that at least three or four of them will take the initiative to launch it.
Chaotic governance can be brought under control with the right interlocutors, and there are several such figures in the Persian Gulf countries. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates know how to make their voices heard by the United States, but we would need to have a negotiation plan other than the one involving Pakistan to secure a pause from the United States, which does not seem to have internalized the cycle of “ship incident—bombings—retaliation against U.S. allies in the Gulf,” and so it begins all over again…
Governance in Iran
Iran denies that the Revolutionary Guards have committed abuses against ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz. The memorandum of understanding (MOU) that was negotiated and made public does not provide for any circumstances under which Iran would be authorized to use threats or force. Point 1 of the MOU is particularly clear.
If there were a ceasefire monitoring committee, the evidence of these interventions by the Revolutionary Guards would be sufficiently documented to be indisputable. But Iran denies this reality and highlights U.S. reactions in the form of airstrikes. Prior to the airstrikes, there were these incidents provoked by the Revolutionary Guards. These incidents cannot be justified under the signed protocol and demonstrate a problem with Iranian governance. There are those who negotiate, and then others who act differently. Censorship in Iran and the need to appear victorious have driven the Iranian regime to make many claims that bear only a distant resemblance to reality and to what was negotiated.
Reimposing a navigation ban is contrary to the agreed-upon protocol. Claiming that Iran has the right to control the Strait of Hormuz is not in line with the protocol. Iran could justify having control within its territorial waters, just as the Sultanate of Oman can justify control of the Strait of Hormuz within its territorial waters, but this was not stated in those terms in the protocol.
This section must be developed among the countries bordering the Persian Gulf and implemented as soon as possible.
To prepare this section, it is proposed that a preparatory commission be established to have each Persian Gulf coastal state validate the boundaries of its territorial waters. This commission is an essential preparatory step for the Persian Gulf Council. It is likely that the claims submitted by each state will be incompatible and inconsistent. A coherent framework recognized by all parties must be achieved by applying standard rules. Regarding the Strait of Hormuz, this boundary must lie midway between the coasts of the countries on either side of the strait. This therefore directly concerns Iran, Oman, and the UAE. The other countries should have territorial sea boundaries consistent with existing international rules. Some might say this is obvious, but such obvious points must be verified on maps and validated by each country bordering the Persian Gulf.
Why are these boundaries important?
- For each country’s control of the Strait of Hormuz within its territorial waters,
- To carry out mine clearance of the former international shipping lanes that were deliberately mined in order to establish new, safe routes—which, coincidentally, are located solely within Iranian territorial waters, according to Iran.
When should this commission’s work have begun? A few weeks ago, and without any results, everything will just go around in circles, since we have no information about any mine-clearing work en cours qui aurait du être terminé pour le 17 Juillet et n’a probablement même pas commencé.
Governance in the United States
It’s just as complicated. There’s a secretary of state who seems to be absent from the decision-making process regarding this war. The pattern is simple: there are incidents involving ships, we bomb them, which provokes retaliation, and thus further retaliation in the form of bombings. The intelligence of U.S. leaders has failed to allow them to recognize that there are internal inconsistencies within Iran; rather than bombing again, they should have—and should—focused on this point and on the issue of internal governance in Iran.
Rather than engaging in such reflection on Iranian governance and ways to address it, the United States’ magic solution is: let’s bomb them until they give in. If they haven’t “given in” before, there’s little chance they will now. And here we go again—another war that Israel will join with glee: that’s exactly what they wanted.
July 13, 2026
Naej DRANER
Postscript 5:00 p.m.:
The right response from the United States and the Gulf states would be to highlight Iran’s inconsistencies—which stem from internal power struggles—and to exploit these internal contradictions by constantly drawing attention to the excesses of the Revolutionary Guards. To do this, we must respond tit for tat.etc.
– The Iranians claim they are not behind the incidents: Iran does not control its troops.
– We did not order these incidents: you do not control what your troops do.
– This is in accordance with the signed protocol: you cannot read the texts you have signed.
Instead, the bombings in Iran are distracting attention from the root cause of the incidents triggered by unruly Revolutionary Guards. These incidents provided an opportunity to argue that Iran’s government is imploding and that the Revolutionary Guards are no longer under control. This is a low blow on the part of U.S. leaders… and those of the Gulf states, who are highlighting attacks on their own soil that can be attributed to U.S. airstrikes. The root cause is the Iranian Supreme Leader’s inability to enforce agreements signed by his country. It is the Revolutionary Guards who are applying an imaginery agreement that was never signed. Are Iranian leaders still in control? Personally, I doubt it, and we should keep that doubt alive. It’s time for the Iranian Supreme Leader to show who is ruling the country. Can he read again the MOU signed by his country ?