The ongoing war with Iran has placed the Gulf states squarely at the center of a confrontation they never sought.
From Saudi Arabia to the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, and Kuwait, these countries find themselves facing the consequences of a conflict that was started by others, yet whose reverberations have engulfed their territories and economies.
For years, they have sought to avoid entanglement in Iran’s regional ambitions. Today, however, the war has forced them to confront the harsh reality of their vulnerabilities.
From the outset, Iran has employed asymmetric tactics designed to pressure its adversaries, targeting infrastructure, energy installations, and civilian sites across the region.
Yet, despite the attacks, the Gulf states have so far refrained from openly joining a full-scale military campaign against Tehran.
This cautious approach stems from several factors. Militarily, the Gulf states are acutely aware of their limitations.
Economically, they remain highly vulnerable to disruptions, particularly in energy exports and global trade through the Strait of Hormuz.
Politically, there is uncertainty about the objectives and commitment of the United States, which has traditionally played the role of regional guarantor.
In the face of these constraints, the Gulf states have adopted a strategy of measured engagement: allowing allied forces to operate from their territories, conducting limited offensive actions that allow for plausible deniability, and refraining from moves that could provoke significant Iranian retaliation.
The strategic logic is clear.
From the perspective of the Gulf states, the war is not merely about the immediate damage inflicted on Iran; it is also a test of whether a lasting regional and international framework will emerge to prevent Tehran from rebuilding its military and nuclear capabilities.
The Gulf leadership is acutely aware that the outcome of the war has implications far beyond the battlefield: it could redefine regional balances of power, test the credibility of the US as a security guarantor, and shape their relations with other key regional actors, including Israel.
Iran, for its part, has identified the Gulf states as the “soft underbelly” of the confrontation. By targeting them, Iran seeks leverage, hoping to pressure the United States and shorten the duration of the conflict.
Should the Iranian regime survive the war, even in a weakened state, the consequences for the Gulf could be profound. The United States’s credibility as the protector of the region could be undermined, while Israel might be blamed for drawing the US into a perilous military adventure.
The war has also highlighted a longstanding truth: the Gulf states are exposed, strategically and economically, and have limited room for unilateral action. Their cautious policy – a combination of restraint, limited engagement, and behind-the-scenes diplomacy – reflects a clear-eyed understanding of these constraints.
Far from revealing a new reality, the conflict sharpens existing strategic calculations and underscores the delicate position of these states within the regional order.
Israel’s role adds another layer of complexity.
Israel’s role and regional security calculus
The war has showcased Israel’s technological and operational advantages, particularly in missile defense, early warning systems, and cyber capabilities.
These capabilities, proven under fire, are likely to attract interest from Gulf states, which have faced similar threats during the conflict. Yet, while security cooperation may offer tangible benefits, political sensitivities remain.
The Gulf states continue to weigh the risks of openly collaborating with Israel against domestic and regional perceptions, particularly regarding the Palestinian issue.
Looking ahead, the trajectory of Gulf-Israel relations will be closely linked to the outcome of the war.
If Iran emerges as a diminished threat, the strategic incentive for deep security ties with Israel may be reduced. Conversely, if the conflict leaves Tehran’s capabilities intact or only partially degraded, Gulf states may see greater value in discreet partnerships to bolster their own security.
Meanwhile, unresolved regional flashpoints, such as Gaza, are likely to reemerge, further complicating the security and diplomatic calculus.
In essence, the Gulf states are navigating an unwanted reality, caught between external threats and internal constraints, reliant on alliances yet wary of entanglement, and facing a rapidly evolving regional order.
Their cautious, measured approach is a reflection of prudence, necessity, and strategic foresight. The war has underscored a fundamental truth: in the Gulf, strategic patience is not merely a virtue; it is a survival strategy.
The coming months will be decisive. The Gulf states’ ability to preserve stability, maintain strategic flexibility, and avoid being drawn into an escalation will shape the region for years to come.
For their leaders, the challenge is to manage a conflict that they never chose, under conditions that test both their military and political judgment, and in a geopolitical landscape where missteps can carry consequences far beyond their borders.
The writer is a senior fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) at Tel Aviv University.