Nournews: While consultations between Tehran and Washington aimed at reaching a memorandum of understanding on a negotiation framework have entered a new phase, today’s visit by the delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran to Doha, led by Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, can be viewed as part of a broader diplomatic puzzle that has taken shape in recent weeks through Pakistani mediation to end the imposed war and is still evolving.
According to published reports, the Doha talks will not be limited to bilateral issues. Topics such as the Strait of Hormuz, mechanisms for de-escalation, and the release of part of Iran’s frozen assets are also on the agenda. The coincidence of these diplomatic efforts with the continuation of the ceasefire in the 40-day war suggests that the region has entered a new stage—one in which not only the rules of deterrence, but also the patterns of political and security interactions, are being redefined.
Regardless of the differing narratives surrounding the outcome of the 40-day war, one critical reality became clear: the assumption that Iran could be forced into submission through military means failed, despite the United States and the Israeli regime employing their maximum military capabilities. Iran’s ability to preserve its response capacity throughout the conflict and maintain its operational capabilities conveyed a clear message to regional and extra-regional actors alike: any attempt to destabilize Tehran would not necessarily produce limited or controllable consequences.
As a result, efforts to establish a negotiation framework are no longer understood merely as attempts to halt tensions. Rather, they are increasingly seen as part of a broader attempt to define a new regional balance—one in which the costs and benefits of military confrontation have fundamentally changed for all sides.
For more than three decades, Iran has emphasized the necessity of establishing collective security in the Persian Gulf based on regional capacities. In practice, however, the region’s security order evolved according to a different model—one in which threats, sanctions, and pressure were directed primarily at Iran, while some regional states, relying on foreign military bases and security ties with extra-regional powers, enjoyed economic stability and a broad security margin.
The result was a security imbalance in which the costs of crises were largely borne by Tehran, while the benefits of regional stability were shared by others. The recent war, however, has seriously challenged this longstanding assumption.
One possible scenario, should the parties move beyond the initial understanding and enter formal negotiations, is the emergence of a “neither war nor peace” situation—a state of suspended security that could become the most undesirable condition for both Iran and the region. Under such circumstances, there would be neither a clear horizon for a final agreement nor a return to sustainable stability. Economic investments, regional projects, energy markets, and even trade routes would all remain trapped in an atmosphere of uncertainty.
The experience of recent years has shown that the economies of the Persian Gulf region, contrary to common assumptions, are not immune even to limited or temporary insecurity, and any disruption in security calculations can extend far beyond the borders of a single country.
It is precisely here that the most significant strategic transformation after the recent war becomes visible. In past decades, insecurity and pressure were largely viewed as an Iranian issue, and many regional actors believed they could continue pressuring Tehran while simultaneously benefiting from economic and security stability. Iran has now redefined that equation.
A now unavoidable reality has emerged: security in the region must either take on a collective character, or instability itself will become collective. This does not necessarily mean that Iran seeks to expand tensions. On the contrary, the objective may be to alter the security calculations of regional actors by increasing the costs of instability.
In other words, Iran is attempting to solidify the understanding that all beneficiaries of regional security must also bear responsibility for creating sustainable security and actively contribute to it. Lasting stability in the region will only be possible if the security interests of all actors—including Tehran—are taken into account.
From this perspective, the visit of the Iranian delegation to Doha, coinciding with efforts to draft a negotiation framework, is far more than an ordinary diplomatic move. It is part of the process of shaping a new security order in the Persian Gulf—an order whose success or failure will largely depend on whether regional and extra-regional actors have accepted the message of the 40-day war or whether they will continue to insist on previous calculations.
What has become clear so far is that Iran has demonstrated not only that it possesses the necessary tools to pursue this strategy, but also the political and security will required to consolidate it.
Nournews