Gulf states bet on restraint in Mideast conflict–analysts
Despite being showered with Iranian missiles and drones, the Gulf states have appeared to take a strictly defensive stance towards the Islamic republic in a bid to stop the US-Israeli war from becoming their own.
The wealthy US allies had long been seen as safe havens in a turbulent Middle East, but the current war has spread across the region and seen their critical infrastructure, military bases and energy facilities targeted.
The Gulf capitals have released public statements saying they are not taking part in operations against Iran and that their territory is not being used as a base for attacks.
Analysts believe the oil-rich countries are collectively betting on staying out of the conflict, figuring the cost of direct involvement would be far higher than that of restraint.
But there is pressure on them to join.
Significant challenge
Iran’s attacks pose a significant, multi-faceted challenge to the Gulf.
“It’s challenging their economies. It’s challenging their societies. It is challenging their critical infrastructure. It is challenging their defensive systems,” Gulf security analyst Anna Jacobs told Agence France-Presse (AFP).
In one recent incident, an Iranian drone attack on Bahrain damaged a water desalination plant—essential infrastructure for both the country’s economy and its drinking water supplies.
Jacobs said “the current posture of the Gulf States vis-a-vis the Iranian strikes can still be described as defensive,” adding: “This remains their nightmare scenario.”
Last week, Qatari premier Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani accused Iran of dragging its Gulf neighbors into a “war that is not theirs.”
The United Arab Emirates has also distanced itself, stressing that it would “not partake in any attacks against Iran.”
“The UAE does not seek to be drawn into conflict or escalation,” said Jamal Al Musharakh, the UAE’s ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva.
Jacobs said that while many red lines have already been crossed, the Gulf states will “as much as they possibly can… remain out of this war.”
Security partnership
Andreas Krieg, a security expert at King’s College London, summed up the approach as “restraint and resilience.”
The Gulf states, which host several US bases, “do not want to be sucked into an Israeli war effort, and they calculate that overt offensive participation would buy them limited military advantage at a very high political and economic price,” he said.
All the more so as Riyadh and Abu Dhabi are not only seeing their energy infrastructure targeted, but also finding that the war is putting at risk diversification projects aimed at attracting tourists and capital.
The conflict is also testing the security architecture that has bound the Gulf countries to Washington for decades.
A regional heavyweight, Saudi Arabia’s relationship with the United States was historically shaped by the so‑called oil-for-security partnership: Riyadh guaranteed a plentiful supply of crude, while Washington pledged military support, notably through massive arms sales.
But the airstrikes have highlighted the limitations of that partnership.
Frustration with the United States is growing in the Gulf, with billionaire businessman Khalaf al-Habtoor lashing out at Washington in two now-deleted posts for dragging the region into war.
Yet Washington is dialing up the pressure: Sen. Lindsey Graham, a foreign policy hawk and ally of Trump, criticized Saudi Arabia this week.
“It is my understanding that the Kingdom refuses to use their capable military as a part of an effort to end… the Iranian regime,” he said on X.
“Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”
Tangible value
But Riyadh, home to Islam’s holiest sites and a leader of the Sunni world, has little interest in bombing another Muslim country as part of a campaign led by Israel, with which it has no diplomatic ties.
“The American security partnership is clearly being rethought, but not abandoned,” Krieg said.
“Some Gulf officials now see the US partnership as indispensable but materially contingent… They need more tangible value from the partnership,” he added.
Krieg said the alternatives were limited: “They do not see Russia or China as substitutes for an American security umbrella.”
According to Jacobs, once the war is over, the Gulf states “will remember everything that happened.”
“They will remember how Iran acted and how Iran retaliated, but they will also remember how the US put them in an impossible situation.”
