A recent proposal to transform the Persian Gulf into a jointly administered regional commons, akin to the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), has drawn criticism over its feasibility and implications for regional security. The suggestion envisions Gulf states collectively managing the Strait of Hormuz to ensure uninterrupted navigation and resource access. However, experts warn that this approach overlooks crucial historical and geopolitical differences between the Gulf and Europe.

Mark D. Wallace, chief executive of United Against Nuclear Iran, argues that the ECSC’s success hinged on unique conditions absent in the Gulf region. He notes that peace in Europe followed from a process in which France, West Germany, and other partners reconciled long-standing territorial disputes, renounced revisionist ambitions, and committed to a shared legal framework backed by the United States. According to Wallace, none of these foundational elements exist among Gulf states, particularly given ongoing tensions with Iran.

Wallace highlights Iran’s repeated threats to close the Strait of Hormuz—a vital maritime chokepoint through which a significant portion of the world’s oil supply passes—as a central security concern. He contends that granting Iran a formal role in administering the strait would effectively reward coercive behavior and entrust a state widely accused of sponsoring terrorism with control over a critical artery of global commerce. Such an arrangement, he warns, could undermine regional stability, disrupt energy markets, and jeopardize freedom of navigation.

Rather than renegotiating rules or sharing governance of the strait, Wallace advocates for deterring and penalizing Iranian coercion, emphasizing enforcement of existing international laws. He suggests that the root problem is not an absence of legal frameworks but Iran’s consistent violations and aggressive posture in the region.

The debate over the Strait of Hormuz’s governance reflects broader concerns about balancing regional cooperation with security imperatives. While proponents of joint administration emphasize potential benefits in reducing conflict risks and ensuring equal access, critics maintain that fundamental mistrust and differing strategic objectives complicate such efforts. The presence of external actors and global energy dependencies further amplify the stakes involved in any proposed management arrangements.