US President Donald Trump’s anticipated meeting with leaders from the Persian Gulf region is emerging as a pivotal moment for Washington to consider a post-conflict future in the Middle East that extends beyond the immediate military confrontation with Iran. The discussions are expected to focus not only on ending hostilities but also on establishing a sustainable regional order after the war, according to analysis from Middle East experts.

The central challenge facing US policymakers and their Gulf partners is whether the existing political framework—one that has fueled recurrent tensions for nearly 50 years—can be restructured to prevent future conflicts. While traditional postwar concerns include securing critical maritime routes such as the Strait of Hormuz and formulating diplomatic accords to declare an end to violence, experts argue that these efforts must be part of a broader strategy aimed at addressing the political dynamics within Iran itself.

The Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, have invested heavily in transforming their economies into hubs for commerce, finance, tourism, and technology. However, the region’s economic ambitions depend on a foundation of predictability and security. Persistent threats from missile and drone attacks, proxy forces, and disruptions to maritime navigation undermine this stability. Consequently, the security of the region is increasingly seen as inseparable from its economic future.

Central to any durable peace is the role of Iran’s Islamic Republic, which since 1979 has employed a strategy of proxy warfare and revolutionary militancy, embedding these tactics into its state security doctrine. Tehran’s support for groups such as Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Houthis has allowed it to expand influence without engaging in full-scale conventional warfare. While sanctions, diplomatic efforts, and military measures have at times restrained this network, analysts caution that strategies focusing only on containment risk perpetuating cyclical confrontations if the underlying political system in Tehran remains unchanged.

There is growing advocacy for Washington to prepare for the possibility of a political transition within Iran. Such preparation does not equate to interference in Iran’s internal affairs or selection of its future leadership, but rather acknowledges that the Islamic Republic is grappling with a crisis of legitimacy fueled by repression, corruption, and domestic unrest. Authorities suggest that gradual erosion of the current order could lead to a sudden collapse, making early planning and engagement with credible internal opposition essential.

One proposed approach involves fostering dialogue with nationalist and secular Iranian factions, including figures like Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, who advocate for democratic reform and preservation of Iran’s territorial integrity. The aim would be to develop a transitional political authority capable of maintaining state institutions and preventing fragmentation or violent retribution, thereby ensuring continuity amid change. Neighboring countries would play a critical role by providing neutral ground for such political coordination and refraining from actions that could exacerbate internal divisions.

Saudi Arabia and Israel are identified as key regional actors in constructing this future security architecture. While their political systems and interests differ, both have faced challenges from Iranian-backed groups and share an interest in a Middle East governed by sovereign states rather than militias and proxies. Ongoing cooperation among US, Israeli, and Arab military officials signals a convergence of security interests that could extend from military defense to economic integration and counterterrorism efforts, potentially solidifying emerging ties initiated through the Abraham Accords.

Experts emphasize that distinguishing between Iran as a nation and the current Islamic Republic regime is crucial. Iran’s history and identity transcend the 1979 revolution, and a postwar strategy predicated solely on containing the existing regime risks overlooking the potential for profound political transformation. Reflecting on the rapid collapse of the Shah’s regime in 1979, analysts warn against assuming the durability of the current order, which could weaken internally even if it appears externally stable.

Trump’s summit is therefore expected to address both the immediate task of ending conflict and the longer-term challenge of preventing its recurrence by confronting the political realities within Iran. Success will require diplomatic, military, and strategic coordination across Washington, Jerusalem, Riyadh, and other Gulf capitals to identify legitimate Iranian political actors and design mechanisms safeguarding Iran’s unity and sovereignty during any future transition.

The prevailing consensus is that long-term peace and prosperity in the Persian Gulf depend not only on resolving present hostilities but also on carefully preparing for a future regional configuration that may evolve without the Islamic Republic as the central political entity. Failure to do so could condemn the region to ongoing cycles of conflict driven by unresolved systemic issues within Iran’s political order.