Behind the scenes of the volatile regional landscape, the contours of an exceptionally complex diplomatic movement are coming into view. This activity transcends, in essence, ideological disputes and long declared historical rivalries. On the horizon emerges an intense Gulf mediation effort directed at decision makers in Washington, one that does not necessarily aim to repair relations with Tehran as much as it seeks to preserve a status quo that ensures the Iranian system remains under a controlled form of siege.
This approach, which may appear at first glance to be a political paradox, is in fact rooted in the harsh logic of political realism. In this framework, major economic calculations take precedence over all other considerations, and the oil game becomes the cornerstone in shaping alliances and unconventional mediation efforts.
The core of this movement is based on a firm conviction among Gulf capitals that any dramatic collapse or sudden fall of Iran’s governing structure would inevitably lead to the release of the Iranian oil giant from the confines of sanctions. This would flood global markets with massive flows of crude outside the current framework of control. Such a scenario, catastrophic from a utilitarian perspective, would inevitably trigger a rapid collapse in global oil prices, potentially reaching low levels near forty dollars per barrel. This would strike at the heart of financial stability for exporting states and pose a direct threat to sovereign budgets whose growth depends on sustaining prices at profitable levels.
On the other side, these concerns intersect with a pragmatic American philosophy that views the financial abundance of its allies as a surplus that must be subjected to the balances of international economic power. This makes the continuation of the current Iranian condition, in its sanctioned form, a shared strategic interest. It is a strategy of subjugation rather than eradication. The Iranian system is meant to remain bound by sanctions, unable to fully export its oil wealth, thereby maintaining supply scarcity and price stability, while simultaneously keeping it in a state of structural weakness that prevents nuclear or regional expansion.
This scene represents the peak of political pragmatism, where crises are managed with the mindset of a trader and a strategic planner. In such a world, the survival of the adversary becomes an economic necessity to maximise the gains of the ally. In the world of Trump, emotions do not govern decision making. Numbers do, along with power balances above the oil wells. The question remains whether Gulf mediation can succeed amid Trump’s volatility.
