Muted U.S. Response to Iranian Attacks Deepens Gulf Fears About Cease-Fire
Arab Gulf states are concerned that a negotiated end to the conflict will leave threats to their security intact
The Trump administration’s attempts to shrug off exchanges of fire with Iran this week deepened concerns among Arab Gulf states that any deal to end the war will expose them to future conflict with a vengeful Iran.
Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, dismissed the attacks by Iran on ships in the Strait of Hormuz this week as “low harassing fire.” On Thursday, President Trump said Iran “trifled with us.”
The efforts to play down the attacks came as the Trump administration tried to protect a fragile cease-fire and keep peace talks moving forward. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the U.S. expected a response by Friday to its one-page memorandum of understanding that would declare an end to the two-monthslong war, while warning the Iranians would be “blown up” if they attacked the U.S. and its allies.
But for Gulf states that host major U.S. military installations and have long counted on defense ties with America as a hedge against Iran, the attacks by Iran represented another humbling moment in a conflict that has badly damaged their security and economies.
They are now worried, senior Gulf officials say, that the deal to end it will focus on Washington’s main concern—Iran’s nuclear program—while leaving intact what they see as the main threats to their security: the regime’s conventional missiles and its allied militias.
“Having an angry, injured Iran that is cornered is bad for Gulf countries, because it isn’t containable in the way it was before the war.” said Dania Thafer, executive director of the Gulf International Forum, a Washington-based think tank.
The war has also undermined a diplomatic process initiated by Trump to normalize Gulf relations with Israel, raising questions about the U.S. security guarantees underpinning it, and revealing more clearly Israel’s military might and ambition, senior Gulf officials say.
The six Arab monarchies bordering the Persian Gulf, dubbed the Gulf Cooperation Council, for years maintained their security by keeping an open line of communication with Tehran while deepening defense ties with Washington. They now are reassessing their dependence on Washington, realizing that they have little sway over U.S. military actions and that American bases on their soil didn’t deter Iran from attacking them, senior Gulf officials say.
“When the U.S. launched their attack, they did not take into consideration the GCC’s security concerns,” said Mohammed Baharoon, director general of the Dubai Public Policy Research Center, a private Emirati think tank. “We were not part of that assessment.”
Perhaps to assuage fears among Gulf allies, Rubio this week approved arms sales worth $25.8 billion to Middle East partners, tripling the amount announced by the administration last week.
Iran retaliated for Israel’s killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei by attacking Gulf countries directly, an unprecedented step, and learned that it could impose significant costs on the global economy at a low cost and effort.
The six Gulf monarchies are now internally divided over how to approach Iran, as well as the U.S. and Israel, in the future. They disagree partly because Iranian attacks didn’t hurt them equally.
The bulk of Iranian attacks targeted the United Arab Emirates, including the crucial Fujairah port, oil facilities and other infrastructure. Kuwait was heavily targeted due to the presence of U.S. bases. Saudi Arabia was hit repeatedly but suffered relatively contained damage, and intercepted many missiles. Oman, long a mediator in the Middle East, evaded major direct strikes.
That calibration of attacks was deliberate by Iran, and has forced its Arab neighbors to focus on individual, sometimes competing security interests, rather than present a unified front, Thafer said. “The problem is the Gulf states don’t see the Iranian threat equally,” she said.
During his first term, Trump brokered diplomatic agreements known as the Abraham Accords to normalize relations between Israel and various Gulf states, and they are widely considered a significant foreign policy achievement.
The war in Gaza dealt the initial blow to the normalization process, making it politically untenable for some Arab leaders to nurture diplomatic ties to Israel. The Iran war then sharpened divisions among Gulf states and exposed the limits of U.S. protection, further undermining the accords, Gulf officials say.
One position uniting the Gulf states is a refusal to let Israel exercise strategic dominance over the region. They unanimously think Israel poses as great a danger to regional stability as Iran, Gulf officials say, and that it is trying to drag them into the war.
Even so, the U.A.E. is looking to firm up its relationship with Israel, as is Bahrain, partly as a hedge against Iranian threats. Israel sent its Iron Dome battery and dozens of troops to the U.A.E. in March. And in another sign that it is increasingly going it alone, the U.A.E. last month announced it would leave the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.
“The U.A.E. is signaling that regardless of how the war ends, they have lost faith in the value of regional cooperation,” said Sam Worby, managing director of Global Repute, a geopolitical advisory firm.
Worst case for the Arab monarchies would be if their competition while navigating the U.S.-Iran standoff prompts a new Gulf rift, which could spill beyond the Middle East, Worby said. Rivalry between the U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia has in the past pitted the two powerful monarchies on opposing sides of civil wars in Sudan and Yemen.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are increasingly looking to other world powers for support. Pakistan last month sent warplanes to Riyadh after signing a security pact with the kingdom in September. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the U.A.E. are turning to South Korean missile-defense systems and Ukrainian drones. China, Russia and Turkey increasingly pursue security interests in the region, too.
Oman has emerged as the most critical voice opposing Israel. Its mediating role and back-channel negotiations with Iran helped Gulf states reopen flight corridors within days after the war started. Omani officials continue to try to convince Gulf neighbors to maintain diplomacy with Iran, and recognize that dealing with the Iranian military, given their inability to neither predict nor sway Trump, is inevitable.
Gulf states have for years hosted U.S. bases on the assumption that the bases would grant them security. The bases were controversial among Arab populations, and became liabilities when Iranian retaliatory attacks targeted them. Qatar, in particular, has begun questioning the policy. However, abandoning military partnerships with the U.S. is complicated, as Gulf defense systems are intertwined with American equipment, maintenance and training.
Gulf decision makers also debate whether to build a strong military alliance among themselves, but some doubt they would be able to build a self-sustaining military industry capable of deterring Iran, several senior Gulf officials said.
There is no easy way for Gulf states to deter future Iranian attacks, said Dina Esfandiary, Middle East analyst and author of “New Order in the Gulf: The Rise of the UAE.”
“The only way you rebuild deterrence is through a combination of containment and engagement. And you build ties with the Iranians so they don’t resort to airstrikes against your territory. But I don’t think that’s how the Gulf Arab states all see it,” she said.