The United States' approach to its ongoing conflict with Iran is increasingly under scrutiny, as Gulf Arab nations bear significant economic and security burdens from the protracted confrontation. While Washington can sustain a distant conflict to degrade Iran's military capabilities, the proximity of the fighting imposes a severe cost on the six Gulf Arab states.
Iranian strikes targeting civilian infrastructure, including airports and power plants, coupled with disruptions to oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz, have had a devastating economic impact on the region. For these nations, the desire for a swift resolution to the conflict is paramount. They have been on the receiving end of sustained Iranian attacks since late February, and unlike the U.S., their capacity and willingness to engage directly in the fighting are limited.
This has led to questions about whether the U.S. should curb its military actions to spare its neighbors from Iranian retaliation, or conversely, how Washington can provide them with greater protection. The conflict, which all six Gulf states initially opposed, has made it clear that Iran poses a direct and severe threat to their security. However, this realization has not translated into a unified Gulf policy toward Tehran, with some states adopting more hawkish stances than others.
The economic strain, compounded by Iran's blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and tensions in the Red Sea, has led to the conclusion that the current state of "no war, no peace" is unsustainable. The United Arab Emirates has been particularly vocal, severing diplomatic ties with Iran, deporting Iranian expatriates, and freezing Iranian bank accounts following ballistic missile strikes on Abu Dhabi. Bahrain, which hosts key U.S. naval command centers, is also a staunch opponent of Iran, having engaged in retaliatory strikes against Iranian targets after its own civilian and military installations were attacked.
Other Gulf countries, historically maintaining good relations with Iran, have also been drawn into the conflict. Kuwait's main international airport, desalination plants, power stations, and offshore oil rigs have been targeted by Iranian forces. Qatar and Oman have pursued appeasement policies despite attacks on their soil, while Saudi Arabia has adopted a non-confrontational posture, although it participated in U.S. attacks on Iranian-linked sites in Iraq after U.S. forces were targeted.
As the U.S. administration considers its next steps, it must account for these divergent positions, given the close commercial and military ties within the Gulf. A further U.S. military offensive, particularly one that could end Iran's disruption of oil passage, is unlikely to face outright opposition. Conversely, a U.S. withdrawal would signal to Tehran that it is the dominant regional power, to the detriment of American allies.
Analysts suggest that the Gulf states face difficult choices: appeasement, which would solidify Iran's regional dominance; containment, relying on a U.S. wary of prolonged commitments; or confrontation, necessitating a significant increase in their own defense capabilities, potentially including the acquisition of nuclear weapons.
The author posits that a more effective approach would be to address the problem directly by urging President Trump to act decisively on his warnings to Iran's leadership, asserting that all Gulf states remain at risk as long as the current Iranian regime persists.