US President Donald Trump is expected to meet soon with leaders from the Persian Gulf, as Washington begins to consider the broader regional order that may emerge after ongoing conflicts involving Iran. While current discussions focus on ending hostilities and securing key transit routes such as the Strait of Hormuz, experts emphasize the need to address deeper political dynamics underpinning recurring tensions that have lasted for nearly five decades.

Central to these concerns is the question of whether the political system within Iran, which has consistently fueled regional confrontations since 1979, will remain intact after any conflict. Analysts warn that without addressing the ideological and structural foundations of the Islamic Republic, efforts to stabilize the region risk merely postponing future crises. The economic ambitions of Gulf states—including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and others—to transform the region into centers of commerce, finance, and technology depend heavily on sustained predictability and security, which current instability threatens.

The Iranian government’s approach to extending influence—through proxy militias such as Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Houthis, and other Shi’ite groups—has become embedded in its political and security doctrine. These proxy networks enable Iran to project power without engaging in direct military confrontation, complicating efforts to neutralize threats through sanctions, diplomacy, or military action alone.

Given these realities, some observers argue that the United States and its allies should be prepared for a potential political transition within Iran. Such a transition, they say, should respect Iranian sovereignty and be determined by the Iranian people rather than imposed externally. Nonetheless, preparing for this possibility—including engaging with nationalist figures like Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi and distinguishing democratic forces from sectarian or separatist groups—is seen as a strategic imperative to avoid emergency crises in the future.

Regional actors would also play a critical role in supporting a stable transition. Gulf states, in particular, would need to prevent their territories from becoming bases for factions seeking to fragment Iran or engage in proxy conflicts. Instead, they could facilitate diplomatic channels for legitimate Iranian voices to plan for continuity of government if internal authority weakens.

Building a credible transitional authority would require assurances that Iran’s territorial integrity would be maintained, state institutions preserved when possible, and that justice, rather than revenge, would guide political reform processes. Such a framework is aimed at enabling regime change without causing state collapse.

Saudi Arabia and Israel are identified as key regional partners in shaping this vision. Despite differing political systems and priorities, both face challenges from Tehran’s network and share interests in a Middle East governed by sovereign states rather than militant groups. Recent cooperation among US, Israeli, and Arab military officials indicates a convergence of security concerns, which could be further strengthened through expanded ties anchored by agreements like the Abraham Accords.

This regional architecture would integrate economic development, maritime security, counterterrorism, and resistance to proxy warfare as interconnected elements. Analysts note that Saudi Arabia’s long-term growth depends on stability in neighboring Yemen and the broader Gulf, while Israel’s aspirations for regional integration are hindered by ongoing conflicts rooted in ideological militancy.

The broader strategic challenge lies in differentiating Iran—the ancient nation—from the Islamic Republic as a political entity. Washington is cautioned against assuming the current regime’s indefinite survival, drawing parallels to its miscalculations following the 1979 revolution. A dual-focus approach is recommended: managing immediate conflict resolution while preparing for possible political transformation within Iran.

Ultimately, experts contend that lasting peace in the Persian Gulf will require a multifaceted strategy that transcends ending active hostilities. It must encompass foresight, regional cooperation, and recognition that future political realities in Iran may differ fundamentally from the current system. The success of US and regional diplomacy will depend on balancing these objectives without attempting to dictate Iran’s internal political future, thereby reducing the risk of renewed conflict triggered by an unresolved political order.