Iran has condemned a joint US-Gulf Cooperation Council statement as “interventionist, irresponsible and provocative”, accusing Washington and its Gulf allies of using diplomacy to impose pressure on Tehran after the recent United States-Israeli war on Iran.
In a statement on Friday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry rejected the communique issued after a GCC-US ministerial meeting in Bahrain on June 25, saying it distorted regional realities and repeated US and Israeli positions on Iran’s nuclear programme, missile capabilities, regional allies and the Strait of Hormuz.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
What did the US-GCC statement say?
The US-GCC statement followed talks in Manama co-chaired by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Bahraini Foreign Minister Abdullatif bin Rashid Al Zayani, in which foreign ministers from other Gulf nations, including Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, also participated.
The ministers welcomed the June 17 memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran, but tied any future economic engagement with Iran to strict conditions.
The ministers said “any trade and investment with Iran is conditional and reversible”, and reaffirmed “the shared objective of preventing Iran from ever developing or otherwise acquiring a nuclear weapon”.
The statement also said, “lasting regional peace and security requires addressing the full spectrum of Iran’s threats, including its ballistic missiles, drones, and support of proxies in the region”.
It rejected “any tolls, fees, or attempts to assert control over the strait”, saying free and unrestricted navigation “remains essential to regional and global security”.
Regarding Lebanon, the ministers said, “full Lebanese sovereignty cannot be achieved while non-state armed groups maintain military capabilities outside the Lebanese state authority”, in an apparent reference to the Iran-aligned Hezbollah.
The statement called for “the full disarmament of all such groups and the restoration of the Lebanese state’s monopoly of force, while recognising the importance of supporting the Lebanese Armed Forces in doing so”.
The statement also welcomed “ongoing bilateral negotiations between Israel and Lebanon, facilitated by the United States, aimed at creating the conditions for a lasting peace and security agreement between the countries”.
The ministers also underscored a “shared objective of preventing Iran from ever developing or otherwise acquiring a nuclear weapon”.
What did Iran say?
Iran’s Foreign Ministry called the joint statement from the US and GCC countries “interventionist, irresponsible, and provocative”.
The ministry said that the US and Israel had fabricated accusations over Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme, and called on GCC states to work with Iran towards establishing a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East. (Israel is widely understood by experts to have a nuclear arsenal of up to 90 warheads, though it has never confirmed or denied this and is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.)
Describing Iran as “more committed to the collective security of the region than any other party,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei suggested that Gulf states were making a mistake in “seeking protection from the greatest violator of security,” a reference to the US.
Iran also pushed back hard against references to its missile and drone capabilities in the US-GCC statement.
“Iran’s national security and dignity are matters that brook no compromise or condition; just as the inherent right to legitimate self-defense is not open to discussion, the means of this defense cannot be subject to bargaining or concession with any party,” Baghaei said in a post on X.
Tehran said the use of regional bases and facilities during the recent US and Israeli strikes on Iran showed that Washington did not value the security of its Gulf partners. It urged regional states whose territory was used during the conflict to reconsider their position, saying they had obligations under international law and the principle of good neighbourliness to prevent third parties from using their territory for hostile acts against Iran.
Iran also criticised the US-GCC statement for describing Palestinian and Lebanese resistance groups as “Iranian proxies”. Tehran said that language ignored Israel’s continued occupation and attacks, while placing pressure on Lebanon and Palestinian groups resisting Israeli military power.
The Strait of Hormuz formed another major point of dispute.
Iran said disruptions in the waterway were the direct result of US and Israeli military action. It stressed that the Strait of Hormuz lies within the territorial waters of Iran and Oman, and said its future management would be governed by Article 5 of the recently signed memorandum of understanding.
The 14-point MoU says Iran “will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz”.
What is the US military presence in the Gulf?
Iran has repeatedly said US bases in the Gulf make host countries vulnerable in any confrontation with Washington.
Since the start of the war, Iran has struck 20 US military sites.
The US usually maintains about 40,000 troops across the region, including in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait.
That number rose to more than 50,000 after US President Donald Trump escalated the war against Iran.
The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Washington is considering changes to its Gulf posture, including reducing parts of its presence in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, refurbishing facilities in Bahrain and potentially relocating some assets to Israel.
Is Iran pitching itself as a security guarantor?
Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, said safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz could not be guaranteed for vessels moving through the waterway under arrangements that excluded Tehran.
“Any credible framework must be based on coordination with Iran and the provisions of paragraph five of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding,” he said in a statement on X. “Otherwise, the outcome will be the suspension of the designated parallel route.”
Ali Akbar Velayati, a senior adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader, said Gulf stability had long depended on Iran’s management of the Strait of Hormuz, not Western military power.
In a post on X, Velayati wrote: “These political minors of the periphery should not be comforted by commissioned statements; know this, your survival feeds off the scraps of this table.
“In the great realignment, peripheral minor players have no seat at the table,” he added. “They are eliminated, and their strategic survival is at the mercy of Tehran’s tolerance.”
