The Muscat process: making dialogue a security capability

Regional ownership

The credibility of the Muscat Process will ultimately depend on its regional ownership. The participating states would determine its agenda, procedures and pace, while external partners could support the process where their contribution is useful and acceptable to the participants. The United States, Europe and other partners possess capabilities, experience and diplomatic reach that could complement regional arrangements, but the process itself should remain regionally anchored and open to all states of the region. Its value would lie precisely in creating a channel through which states with different security relationships and interests can communicate directly and manage practical risks together.

External support, such as the recent Oman-US consultations and Oman's continuing, mostly bilateral engagement, in different formats, with regional, peripheral and external players, can strengthen the multilateralisation of the process, provided that it reinforces rather than substitutes for regional ownership.

Europe's stake

Europe – likewise the wider Asian theatre, has a direct stake as well. Its energy security, maritime trade and supply chains are connected to stability in the Gulf. European support should respond to priorities defined by the participating states, including technical cooperation where requested. Reliable navigation and resilient infrastructure serve regional interests and the wider economies that depend on them.

Why timing matters

Communication channels are easiest to establish before they are urgently needed, because once governments are locked into adversarial positions, even routine contact can become politically difficult. That is why communication should be treated as part of security infrastructure: something organised, maintained and tested before it comes under strain. Reliable channels can help distinguish an accident from a deliberate act, clarify intentions and reduce the risk that a defensive measure is interpreted as escalation. In doing so, they can strengthen the stability of deterrence and give decision-makers more room to act deliberately under pressure.

The strategic objective is predictability: communication that works, procedures that can be used and practical cooperation that survives political tension. In a crisis, the time available for a decision may be measured in minutes. A regional process that helps governments use those minutes more wisely would provide a consequential security capability and a foundation for more ambitious cooperation.