Gulf states did not ask the US to go to war with Iran, but many are now urging it not to stop short by leaving the Islamic Republic still able to threaten the Gulf’s oil lifeline and the economies that depend on it, three Gulf sources said.
At the same time, these sources, and five Western and Arab diplomats said Washington was pressing Gulf states to join the US-Israeli war. According to three of them, US President Donald Trump wants to show regional backing for the campaign to bolster its international legitimacy as well as support at home.
“There is a wide feeling across the Gulf that Iran has crossed every red line with every Gulf country,” Gulf Research Center chairman Abdulaziz Sager said.
“At first we defended them and opposed the war, but once they began directing strikes at us, they became an enemy. There is no other way to classify them” he said.
Tehran has already demonstrated its reach, attacking airports, ports, oil facilities and commercial hubs in the six Gulf states with missiles and drones while disrupting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz — the artery carrying about one-fifth of global oil and underpinning Gulf economies.
The attacks have reinforced Gulf fears that leaving Iran with any significant offensive weaponry or arms manufacturing capacity could embolden it to hold the region’s energy lifeline hostage whenever tensions rise.
As the war entered its third week, with US and Israeli airstrikes intensifying, and Iran firing at US bases and civilian targets across the Gulf, a source said the prevailing mood among leaders was unmistakable: That Trump should comprehensively degrade Iran’s military capacity.
The alternative was living under constant threat, the source said, adding that unless Iran was severely weakened, it would continue to hold the region to ransom.
Predominantly Shi’ite Muslim Iran has often viewed its Sunni Arab Gulf neighbors — close allies of the US that host US military bases — with deep suspicion, even if relations with Qatar and Oman have generally been less fraught.
Over the years, Iran and its regional allies have been accused of attacks on Gulf energy installations, not least a 2019 strike on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq and Khurais oil facilities — for which Iran denied responsibility — that halved Saudi Arabian output and rattled energy markets.
For Gulf leaders, inaction is now the greater risk.
The effect of Iran’s attacks this month goes far beyond specific material damage, not only disrupting oil flows, but also damaging a hard-won image of stability and security that has underpinned Gulf countries’ attempts to expand trade and tourism, and rely less on fossil fuel exports.
“If the Americans pull out before the task is complete, we’ll be left to confront Iran on our own,” Sager said.
In response to those concerns, the White House said the US was “crushing [Iran’s] ability to shoot these weapons or produce more,” and that Trump was “in close contact with our partners in the Middle East.”
Of the Gulf countries, only the United Arab Emirates (UAE) responded, saying it “does not seek to be drawn into conflicts or escalation,” but affirmed its right to “take all necessary measures” to safeguard its sovereignty, security and integrity, and ensure residents’ safety.
Sources in the region said unilateral military action by any Gulf state remained off the table, because only collective intervention would avoid exposing individual countries to retaliation.
Moreover, consensus is still elusive. The six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council — Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman and the UAE — have held just one Zoom call, and no Arab summit has been convened to discuss coordinated action.
Gulf leaders remain deeply fearful of triggering a broader, uncontrollable conflagration.
US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth last week said Gulf partners were “stepping up even more,” and were willing to “go on the offense” while already working with Washington on collective and integrated air defenses, although he did not specify what else they might do.
A senior UAE official said his country had chosen restraint, after Iran said the US military had used the UAE to strike Kharg Island, home to Iran’s main oil export terminal.
Yet, Sager said Saudi Arabia, Iran’s main rival for regional influence, could be forced to retaliate if Iran crossed red lines, notably with strikes on major oil facilities or desalination plants, or causing heavy casualties.
“In that case, Saudi Arabia would have no choice but to intervene,” Sager said.
Riyadh would nevertheless try to calibrate any response to avoid further escalation, he added.
London School of Economics international relations professor Fawaz Gerges said that at heart, the Gulf states face a strategic dilemma: Balancing the immediate threat of Iranian attacks against the far greater risk of being drawn into a war led by the US and Israel.
Joining that campaign would add little to Washington’s military superiority while sharply increasing exposure to Iranian reprisals, he said. The result is calculated restraint: Defending sovereignty and signaling red lines without entering a war the Gulf countries neither started nor control.
Right now, Iran’s leverage is evident. It has effectively been deciding which ships could pass through the strait, something no state in the region considers acceptable.
“Now that Iran has shown it can shut down Hormuz, the Gulf faces a fundamentally different threat,” Princeton University near eastern studies professor Bernard Haykel said. “If it’s not addressed, this danger will be long term.”
Trump on Sunday called — with little initial success — for a coalition of nations to help reopen the waterway.
While the global economy depends on Gulf oil and gas, most of it flows east to China, Japan and other Asian economies, meaning that they, too, must shoulder responsibility, Haykel said.
“China helped secure maritime routes off Somalia; it might be willing to step in here too,” Haykel added.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
RSS