Yayasan Pendidikan Indonesia Blog

The Fragility of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Iran and the United States: An Analysis of President Trump’s Leadership Style and the Gulf States’ Positioning Challenges

By

Yayasan Pendidikan Indonesia

Special Consultative Status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) since 2013

Abstract

This scholarly article examines the fragility of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and the temporary ceasefire between Iran and the United States amid the escalation of conflict in 2026. Using a critical geopolitical lens, the authors highlight that this fragility stems primarily from President Donald Trump’s transactional and confrontational leadership approach, as well as the Gulf states’ difficulties in positioning themselves as neutral and strategic mediators. The article also explores the implications for Indonesia as a major member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and a significant oil-importing nation.

Introduction

In the complex theatre of Middle Eastern geopolitics, where longstanding rivalries intersect with modern nuclear ambitions and critical global energy routes, the world is witnessing a highly precarious balance. The unstable ceasefire — more accurately described as a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) — between the United States and Iran does not represent genuine peace, but rather a temporary pause in a dangerous cycle of tension.

The conflict that erupted in late February 2026 involved large-scale military operations. Joint US-Israeli airstrikes targeted Iranian nuclear facilities, followed by “Operation Epic Fury,” which significantly degraded Iran’s defensive infrastructure, naval capabilities, and air defence systems. According to Pentagon reports, more than 9,000 targets were struck by March 2026, resulting in thousands of casualties and massive economic damage in Iran.

The situation grew even more complicated with repeated incidents in the Strait of Hormuz — a vital waterway carrying approximately 20% of the world’s oil supply. In July 2026, attacks on commercial vessels triggered a wave of US retaliatory strikes on dozens of Iranian targets, followed by Iranian counterstrikes on US-linked bases in Bahrain and Kuwait. Data from the International Energy Agency (IEA) indicates that disruptions in the Strait caused oil prices to surge by 7–9% within days, reaching nearly US$80 per barrel in early July 2026.

As a civil society organisation holding Special Consultative Status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) since 2013, Yayasan Pendidikan Indonesia believes this moment warrants careful analysis. Drawing on field monitoring from sources such as Fox News, Reuters, Al Jazeera, and diplomatic reports, alongside global economic data, the fragility of the MOU is significantly influenced by two primary factors:

1.  President Donald Trump’s personalistic, transactional leadership style, which relies heavily on military strength and threatening rhetoric. Through White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, the administration has repeatedly stated that “diplomacy is the first option,” while simultaneously emphasising readiness to employ “lethal force” and to “unleash hell” should Iran be perceived as violating agreements. This approach creates mixed signals and high uncertainty at the negotiating table.

2.  The challenges faced by Gulf leaders in positioning themselves strategically and neutrally. Although Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates have actively facilitated mediation — including talks in Doha and the involvement of Pakistan and Turkey — their positions have often remained ambiguous. They have tended to align closely with US priorities for security and economic reasons, thereby losing full trust from Iran. Consequently, the resulting mediation lacks strong legitimacy and has failed to establish durable confidence-building mechanisms.

This is not merely a bilateral US-Iran issue, but a regional crisis with far-reaching consequences. For Indonesia — the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation, a key OIC member, and a significant importer of crude oil — this instability poses real risks to national economic stability, inflation, and energy security. Global oil price spikes directly affect fuel subsidies, logistics costs, and the purchasing power of Indonesian citizens.

The Anatomy of a Fragile Pause

The dramatic escalation of conflict between the United States and Iran since early 2026 has created one of the most tense chapters in their relations since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The crisis began in late February 2026 with joint US-Israeli airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites, building on “Operation Midnight Hammer” (2025) and continuing with “Operation Epic Fury” in 2026. According to Pentagon and Western intelligence sources, these operations substantially destroyed much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, air defences, and naval assets, while eliminating several senior military and political figures.

Between March and June 2026, the conflict evolved into a limited open war. The United States reported striking over 9,000 targets in Iran, including missile bases, drone storage facilities, and port installations. Iran responded with missile and drone attacks on US interests and Gulf allies, including commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz. IEA data shows that tanker attacks reduced commercial traffic in the Strait by 40–50% at the height of tensions, sharply driving up global oil prices.

In mid-June 2026, both sides agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding mediated by Qatar, Pakistan, and several Gulf states. The MOU included a temporary halt to major attacks, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping, and a commitment to indirect talks on Iran’s nuclear programme, ballistic missiles, and proxy activities. Discussions were held in Doha and Geneva, involving US special envoys such as Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.

However, the ceasefire proved highly fragile. Entering July 2026, a new wave of reciprocal incidents occurred. Iran was reported to have attacked three commercial vessels in the Strait (including a Saudi oil tanker and a Qatari LNG carrier). The United States responded with large-scale strikes on more than 170 Iranian targets over two consecutive days (8–9 July 2026), hitting missile bases, small vessels, and coastal logistics infrastructure. Iran retaliated by targeting US-linked bases in Bahrain and Kuwait. Reports from US Central Command (CENTCOM) and Iran’s Ministry of Health indicated dozens to hundreds of casualties in the latest exchanges.

The Trump administration, through Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, has continued to assert that “diplomacy is the first option,” while consistently maintaining that military options remain “on the table.” Leavitt has repeatedly warned that “violence will be met with violence,” and President Trump has stated readiness to “unleash hell” if Iran is seen as violating the agreement.

Meanwhile, Iran has shown willingness to engage through backchannels, though its public rhetoric remains firm and accusatory toward the United States. The regionally mediated MOU seeks to address core issues: ending Iran’s uranium enrichment to weapons-grade levels, limiting ballistic missiles, reducing support for proxy groups, and ensuring secure navigation in the Strait of Hormuz — a lifeline for approximately 20% of global oil supplies.

The fundamental fragility of this MOU is heavily influenced by the Trump factor. An approach relying on heavy military threats, power leverage, and a personalistic transactional style has created a high degree of uncertainty. Repeated warnings such as “it will be a very bad day for Iran” or references to “thousands of missiles ready to launch” have made it difficult for Iran to trust long-term peaceful commitments. As a result, even minor incidents on the ground threaten to unravel the entire diplomatic process.

This situation demonstrates that the MOU is not a solid foundation for peace, but merely a temporary pause built on shifting sands. Without robust verification mechanisms and deep mutual trust, this pause could quickly turn into a more destructive escalation.

The Role of the Gulf States: Mediators Yet to Reach Full Potential

The Gulf states have emerged as key actors in efforts to de-escalate US-Iran tensions. However, their role as mediators remains far from optimal. Their positions frequently blend national self-interest with broader regional stability needs, resulting in mediation efforts that are often temporary and lack deeper legitimacy.

Qatar has been one of the most active mediators, hosting talks in Doha in June–July 2026. Leveraging its unique diplomatic relationships with both Washington and Tehran, Qatar has facilitated several rounds of indirect meetings. Its strength lies in flexibility and broad communication access, though its role is sometimes viewed as too closely aligned with US interests and its own energy and security agenda.

Oman has continued its long tradition of quiet, neutral mediation. Since the era of Sultan Qaboos, Oman has been trusted by all parties. In the 2026 conflict, it once again served as a calm communication bridge. Its strength is its well-established reputation for neutrality, although its contributions have been more supportive than leading.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have supported de-escalation primarily to protect their ambitious economic agendas. Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 and the UAE’s economic diversification efforts make them particularly concerned about disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz that could harm oil exports and foreign investment. Nevertheless, their support for US pressure on Iran remains strong due to deep ideological (Sunni-Shia) and long-term geopolitical rivalries.

Pakistan and Turkey have also contributed as diplomatic intermediaries, broadening the mediation network beyond the Arab Gulf states. Pakistan brings a complex mix of strengths and weaknesses. Its strengths include historical and cultural proximity to Iran and its position as a large Muslim-majority nation that can serve as a bridge. It also holds influence over groups in Afghanistan and South Asia sometimes linked to proxy networks. However, its heavy economic and security dependence on the United States and Saudi Arabia often limits its independence. Domestic pressures from pro-Iran groups further make its stance cautious and occasionally inconsistent.

Turkey, for its part, has appeared somewhat half-hearted in its engagement. As a NATO member, Turkey maintains strong security commitments to the West, which has made its mediation efforts seem calculated and lacking full conviction. Under President Erdogan, Turkey seeks to project itself as an independent regional power, but its NATO membership makes it difficult for Iran to fully trust its neutrality. Turkey’s participation has often been opportunistic — driven by political and economic gains — rather than a deep commitment to sustainable peace. This has reduced the strategic weight of its contributions compared to other mediators.

Despite these efforts, the inability of Gulf leaders and their regional partners to position themselves consistently remains a primary cause of the MOU’s fragility. Their stances have frequently been ambiguous and contradictory. While they support diplomacy to maintain stability and oil prices, historical fears of Iran have led them to back a hardline US approach. This has caused mediation to lose credibility with Iran, which often views many of these mediators as extensions of Washington.

Saudi Arabia stands out as the most prominent example. The Kingdom continues to grapple with profound ideological differences with Iran and existential concerns regarding the sustainability of its monarchical model of governance. The overall uncertainty in the positions of Arab Gulf leaders is not without risk — it could potentially open the door to a new and painful wave of unrest reminiscent of the Arab Spring. When citizens perceive their leaders as prioritising relations with major powers over public welfare and long-term stability, public discontent can rise rapidly.

As a result of these positioning challenges, the mediation efforts have lacked strong legitimacy in the eyes of all parties. They have failed to create durable peace mechanisms, such as joint verification systems or inclusive regional security frameworks. The resulting MOU has therefore remained highly fragile, relying more on short-term interests than on a deep and sustainable vision for peace.

In summary, the Gulf states and their regional partners, while acting as less-than-optimal mediators, have not only weakened the US-Iran diplomatic process but also endangered overall regional stability. Without a shift toward clearer, more neutral, and collectively oriented positions, they risk becoming part of the problem rather than the solution for Middle East peace.

Implications of MOU Fragility for Indonesia

As the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation and a key member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), as well as a significant importer of crude oil, Indonesia is particularly vulnerable to instability in the Middle East. The fragility of the US-Iran MOU is not a distant foreign affair but a direct threat to Indonesia’s economic, political, and social stability.

Repeated disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, which carries around 20% of global oil supplies, have caused sharp fluctuations in world oil prices. In July 2026, prices surged by 7–9% within days. For Indonesia, which imports over 40% of its crude oil needs, this directly affects domestic fuel prices, inflation, logistics costs, transportation, and household purchasing power. Rising energy costs also strain the state budget through fuel and electricity subsidies and could hinder national economic growth.

Beyond economics, as a major OIC player, Indonesia carries a moral and strategic responsibility to promote peace in the Muslim world. Prolonged tensions between Iran and the Gulf states risk weakening Islamic unity and triggering severe humanitarian consequences, including refugee flows, food crises, and regional political instability. For Indonesia, this translates into threats to national security, lost opportunities for economic cooperation with Gulf states and Iran in trade, investment, and energy, and potential damage to its image as a moderate and peace-promoting nation.

These unpredictable developments require Indonesia — particularly under President Prabowo Subianto — to play a more active role as a regional and international peace mediator. Through the Prabowo Initiatives, Yayasan Pendidikan Indonesia has proposed that Indonesia move beyond being a passive observer to become a proactive actor. Leveraging its position as the largest Muslim nation, a G20 member, and a country with a strong tradition of independent and active diplomacy, President Prabowo could lead cross-civilisational dialogue, facilitate informal meetings, and advance inclusive peace solutions through OIC and ASEAN forums. Such active engagement would not only safeguard Indonesia’s national interests from energy volatility but also strengthen its global standing as a respected contributor to world peace.

Lessons for Multilateralism and Peace Education

From the perspective of ECOSOC-accredited civil society, these events clearly illustrate both the limitations and the potential of great-power diplomacy. While direct and indirect talks remain essential, the absence of more inclusive United Nations frameworks risks marginalising the voices of Global South nations and civil society organisations.

Yayasan Pendidikan Indonesia recommends the following concrete steps:

1.  Strengthening Track II diplomacy involving educators, youth, academics, and NGOs to build trust from the ground up.

2.  Aligning economic incentives with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy) and SDG 17 (partnerships for the goals).

3.  Establishing robust international transparency and verification mechanisms to ensure agreements are more resilient.

Conclusion: A Narrow Window of Opportunity

The current MOU between the United States and Iran is neither a resounding diplomatic triumph nor a complete failure. It represents a modest opportunity amid a storm of geopolitical uncertainty — a fragile pause that could easily collapse without wise stewardship. Its success hinges on two key factors highlighted throughout this article: the Gulf states’ ability to overcome positional ambiguity and the willingness of the United States under President Donald Trump to move beyond a transactional, personalistic approach rooted in military threats.

Throughout the escalation since early 2026, we have seen how President Trump’s reliance on “maximum pressure” and strong rhetoric has deepened distrust between the parties. Meanwhile, the inconsistency of Gulf leaders — particularly Saudi Arabia, which remains concerned with ideological differences and the sustainability of its monarchical model — has undermined the legitimacy and depth of mediation efforts. Pakistan’s divided position and Turkey’s somewhat half-hearted engagement due to its NATO commitments further illustrate the complexity of regional challenges. Without fundamental change, the MOU risks becoming little more than a footnote in the long history of unresolved Middle East conflicts.

For Indonesia, this is not merely a routine foreign policy matter. As the world’s largest Muslim nation, a key OIC member, and an oil-importing country vulnerable to global energy shocks, instability in the Gulf directly threatens economic stability, inflation control, and public welfare. At the same time, these uncertain developments present both an opportunity and a responsibility for Indonesia to step forward more assertively.

Yayasan Pendidikan Indonesia strongly encourages the Government of the Republic of Indonesia, particularly under the leadership of President Prabowo Subianto, to assume a more proactive role as a peace mediator. Through the Prabowo Initiatives, Indonesia can utilise its neutral, credible, and respected position to facilitate cross-civilisational dialogue, advance Track II diplomacy, and strengthen multilateral frameworks under the UN and OIC. Such engagement would not only protect Indonesia’s national interests from energy volatility but also enhance its global image as a moderate nation that makes tangible contributions to world peace.

History will not remember those who issued the loudest threats, deployed the most missiles, or drew the firmest red lines. It will remember those who showed the greatest wisdom in choosing the path of diplomacy when the guns fell temporarily silent. Should the Gulf states fail to resolve their positional ambiguities and should major powers continue to rely solely on coercive approaches, the region risks experiencing new waves of instability even more painful than the previous Arab Spring.

As an organisation dedicated to peace education since obtaining special consultative status with ECOSOC in 2013, Yayasan Pendidikan Indonesia calls upon all parties — the United States, Iran, the Gulf states, and the international community — not to squander this narrow window of opportunity. Let us transform the fragility of the MOU into a solid, just, and sustainable foundation for peace.

For Indonesia, this is the moment to emerge as a respected peacemaker. With wisdom, courage, and strong commitment, we can not only safeguard our national interests but also leave a lasting legacy of peace for future generations. The future of the Middle East — and global stability — will, in part, be shaped by the choices we make today.

References

• Herz, J. H. (1950). Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma.

• Jervis, R. (1976). Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton University Press.