Skip to content
Iran Conflict 2026
19APR

Paris and London convene forty nations

4 min read
11:05UTC

Lowdown Newsroom

ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway

Europe is drafting the Hormuz framework Washington never put on paper.

Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer will chair a leaders' video conference on Friday of nations willing to contribute to 'a purely defensive multilateral mission' to restore freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz once security conditions permit. The Elysée announcement, published on Tuesday, confirmed senior diplomats would hold a preparatory call on Thursday and that over forty nations were expected to participate. The conference is the operational successor to the earlier UK-convened Hormuz coordination meeting .

The difference is what is being drafted. At the earlier meeting the coalition agreed to coordinate. On Friday it plans to design a physical mission, command structure, and rules of engagement for a post-war passage framework. In international maritime law, the first credible multilateral framework tends to hold. Subsequent proposals negotiate against it rather than replacing it. Europe's advantage is written documents where the United States has only posts.

The US blockade has been running for several days on a social-media post and a self-generated CENTCOM operational order. The instrument-free record the White House's own presidential-actions page confirmed this week is what gives Paris and London space to hold the pen. With no American presidential text on record, any framework published on Friday becomes the document any post-war passage arrangement must reference. The Anglo-French summit is not framed as a challenge to Washington; it does not need to be. Roughly eighty per cent of the named nations host US bases, which complicates formal opposition to the blockade, but does not prevent them signing a post-war framework the United States has not written.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

France and the UK have invited more than 40 countries to a video conference on Friday to plan what happens at the Strait of Hormuz after the war ends. The Strait is a 33-kilometre-wide waterway between Iran and the Arabian peninsula, and about 20 per cent of the world's oil normally passes through it. Right now the US is running a blockade there; but it has never written down the formal rules on paper. The idea is: if no one writes the rules, whoever writes them first gets to set the terms. Europe is trying to be that writer. The conference would design a security mission; which countries contribute ships, what those ships are allowed to do, and under what legal authority. If it succeeds, the post-war Hormuz rules will have been written in Paris and London, not Washington.

Deep Analysis
Root Causes

The summit's genesis is the US instrument gap (ID:2367). Europe cannot negotiate a post-war passage regime against a text that does not exist. The blockade, the ceasefire, and the toll list are all Truth Social posts; no signed American instrument describes what a post-war Hormuz looks like from Washington's perspective.

The 2 April UK-led coordination meeting (ID:2289) established that Europe had the political will but not the framework. The 17 April summit converts political will into a draft mission document; command structure, rules of engagement, force contributions; before the ceasefire window closes on 22 April. Europe is not challenging Washington; it is filling a governance vacuum Washington has not moved to fill.

What could happen next?
  • Consequence

    If the summit produces operational rules of engagement, Europe holds the pen on post-war Hormuz governance regardless of US diplomatic position

    Short term · 0.7
  • Risk

    Italy's parallel bilateral Gulf trip and France's simultaneous flag-state protest erode the claim that Europe speaks with a unified voice, weakening the framework's negotiating weight

    Immediate · 0.8
  • Opportunity

    A UNCLOS-compatible multilateral mandate gives Tehran a non-US framework to negotiate passage terms against, potentially breaking the Islamabad deadlock by providing an alternative interlocutor

    Medium term · 0.65
First Reported In

Update #69 · Cooper joins the instrument gap

Al-Monitor (Elysée)· 15 Apr 2026
Read original
Different Perspectives
Global South governments (Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa)
Global South governments (Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa)
Neutrality was possible when the targets were military. 148 dead schoolgirls made it impossible — no government can explain that away to its own citizens.
Trump administration
Trump administration
Oscillating between claiming diplomatic progress and threatening escalation, while deploying additional ground forces to the Gulf.
Israeli security establishment
Israeli security establishment
Fears a rapid, vague US-Iran agreement that freezes military operations before the IDF achieves what it considers full strategic objectives. A senior military official assessed the campaign is 'halfway there' and needs several more weeks.
Hezbollah
Hezbollah
Secretary-General Qassem demanded Lebanon cancel its Washington talks and Hezbollah drone launches continued through the ceasefire period, responding to the 15 April IDF triple-tap that killed four paramedics. The group is maintaining armed pressure while blocking Lebanese diplomatic re-engagement with Washington.
Israeli government
Israeli government
Escalating military operations against Iran's naval command and Isfahan infrastructure while maintaining rhetorical commitment to eliminating Iran's ability to threaten regional shipping.
Pakistan government
Pakistan government
Positioning as indispensable mediator by confirming indirect talks, but unable to bridge the substantive gap between both sides' incompatible demands.