To sum up:

• Less than a week ago, Donald Trump was demanding free passage through the Strait of Hormuz, threatening to destroy everything everywhere if his demands weren’t met. A few days later, that same Donald Trump blocked the Strait of Hormuz. LOGICAL, isn’t it? (I’m a bit slow on the uptake and have a hard time grasping the subtleties of how things unfold.)
• Late last week, Donald Trump was already envisioning the creation of a “joint venture” to manage shipping rights through the Strait of Hormuz. In the past few days, that same Donald Trump has declared that any ship that has paid a transit fee will be prosecuted. LOGICAL, isn’t it? (I’m still just as clueless and haven’t figured out why there’s been a complete about-face: my guess is that Iran made it clear to him that they didn’t need him to collect the money.)

We see this kind of thing practically every day. I call it the “windshield wiper” approach (or the search for the best fan by switching directions repeatedly). One swing in one direction, then suddenly the other way, and then we start all over again.

I have to admit I’m a terrible diplomat: I can’t handle both sides of an issue when I keep changing my goals every day.

Is it worth trying?

I think we need to distinguish between the short term (Trump and his “windshield-wiper diplomacy”) and the long term, which will always be relevant even if not much happens in the coming days.

What will always be useful:

• that the countries bordering the Persian Gulf communicate regularly. That is not the case today: the Gulf Cooperation Council aims for political and economic unification and has often taken an anti-Iran stance. These six countries are navigating the reality of the Gulf crisis by trying to put a little more pressure on Iran. All it would take is for a diplomat from each country bordering the Persian Gulf to meet regularly with all their colleagues somewhere in the world. In the event of a crisis, this could happen daily; otherwise, weekly. What would they discuss? What their countries want—identifying the issues of common interest and setting aside the rest.
• There will be issues related to maritime navigation and pollution in the Persian Gulf. It would be helpful to have joint measures in place to address these issues. Rather than asking each country to contribute, we could establish a transit fee, collected collectively, which would help fund these measures.

As a political and security architect, I see two issues:

• A collective right of way
• the denuclearization of the region. Donald Trump and Israel simply want to recover the enriched uranium and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. As for me, I am seeking the denuclearization of the entire region, starting with the Persian Gulf. This won’t happen in a matter of weeks, but if it succeeds, the enriched uranium will have to be recovered. We’ll get there, but by a different route.

The problem with architects is that they have nothing but ideas, and if no one helps bring them to life, nothing will happen. That’s exactly the case.

How can he claim to be an advisor to a Persian Gulf Council that does not exist (or that is being confused with the council of a few coastal countries that represent only one faction in the conflict)?

It was just an idea that might never come to fruition. People today prefer the “windshield wiper” approach to diplomacy.

Naej DRANER

April 14, 2026