With the US and Iran recently agreeing to a framework agreement to end the six-week war, the hard work of turning a ceasefire into a comprehensive deal has begun.However, even though the Gulf states were the primary targets of Iran’s recent aggression during the recent war, none of the document’s 14 points address their security concerns. Any robust and lasting agreement would need to take this aspect seriously.In a recent call with his Iranian counterpart, Kuwait’s Foreign Minister, Sheikh Jarrah Jaber Al Sabah, demanded that Tehran respect its neighbours’ territorial integrity, commit itself to non-interference in their internal affairs and renounce the use of proxies. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan, meanwhile, insisted that Tehran work to rebuild trust with its neighbours before the Gulf states consider re-establishing any pre-war economic ties.Play00:25Iran deal will not harm Gulf security, Rubio saysThe Gulf states are playing a critical role, both directly and behind the scenes, to secure a conflict-ending deal. US and Iranian officials have also hinted that these nations might help pay towards Iran’s reconstruction. While this has yet to be confirmed, it shows the agency that the Gulf states have to shape a comprehensive agreement. After all, they can offer the one thing Iran needs more than anything else: economic recovery.The framework agreement is a welcome break from the instability blighting the Middle East. Nevertheless, it is far from perfect.It defers any Iranian concessions on the nuclear programme as well as its missile and drone stocks. It also gifts Iran something it has long sought – sanctions relief – as a prize for opening the Strait of Hormuz, something that Tehran did not control before the war. Worse, US officials have repeatedly hinted that they will seek to follow up the framework agreement by focusing exclusively on Iran’s nuclear programme, rather than other aspects of its destabilising regional behaviour. This creates a familiar concern in Gulf capitals; it is all too similar to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.A reasonable Gulf demand would be that Tehran agree to limit its missile and drone programmes. The recent war illustrated that the nuclear issue, while important, is tomorrow’s problem; Iran’s drone and missiles remain a clear and present danger. Mitigating this threat would insulate not just the Gulf states but also the entire global economy from any future Iranian attacks.QuoteThe recent war illustrated that the nuclear issue, while important, is tomorrow’s problemAs with the nuclear file, these should be subject to external monitoring and verification. US President Donald Trump’s recent declaration that “missiles aren’t the problem” demonstrates why there is a need to push this position in the ongoing talks. After all, Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz with drones and missiles.Arab states are justified in demanding that Iran moderate its armed regional proxies. The war demonstrated that what happens in Lebanon does not stay in Lebanon. An escalation there, or in Iraq or Yemen, could throw the region back into chaos.Iran will probably not give up support for its proxies. But a comprehensive deal should secure guarantees that Tehran will tone down its support and encourage these groups to include themselves within their respective countries’ political processes as responsible actors, not spoilers. In practical terms, this means testing whether the regime is willing to give up some of its leverage for legitimacy. This will be the ultimate litmus test for a post-war Iran – it can have regional integration, or it can maintain the status quo with its so-called Axis of Resistance. It cannot have both.This is not a new wish list. Some sceptics may even question whether diplomacy can ever induce a behavioural change from Tehran – and with good reason. Before the war, the Gulf states pursued a detente with Tehran and believed that their relationship with the regime could, at worst, be managed and, at best, help bring it in from the cold. That assumption was unable to deter intensive Iranian aggression – albeit in response to US and Israeli military force – seeing as it spanned more than 7,000 projectiles that did not discriminate between military and civilian targets or between Gulf states.And yet the Gulf states were right to exercise restraint during the conflict, and to advocate diplomacy and a framework agreement over a continuation of the war. The agreement, however imperfect, is the Gulf’s first big post-war win in that it brings order to chaos.Their next challenge is harder. First, Gulf states would be right to keep pushing for a comprehensive deal that delivers lasting regional calm. Second, they could consider a pan-GCC understanding with Iran to plug any gaps that Washington leaves open. Third, it would be prudent to pursue both tracks in parallel, because excessive concessions to Iran on one front could strengthen it on the other.Considering the Gulf states’ understandable lack of trust in Iran today, this would no doubt be a tricky process. But diplomacy could achieve what the war sought but failed to induce: a permanent, systemic change in Iran’s grand strategy.