Gulf Arab governments are calling on Washington not to conclude its military campaign against Iran before significantly weakening the military capabilities of the Islamic Republic.
According to regional sources, there is a growing consensus that allowing Tehran to retain its offensive power would leave critical oil routes and regional economies under permanent threat.
While leaders in the region maintain they did not initiate the conflict, the reality of missiles and drones striking airports, ports, and oil installations has altered their perspective. Abdulaziz Sager, chairman of the Gulf Research Center, noted that while these nations initially opposed the war, the direct targeting of their infrastructure has left them with no choice but to classify Iran as an enemy.
The conflict, which entered its third week with intensifying air strikes, has seen Iran retaliating against American bases and civilian targets across the Gulf. Sources suggest that unless the Iranian military is comprehensively degraded, the region will continue to be held to ransom by threats to the Strait of Hormuz, where a fifth of the world’s oil supply passes.
Pressure for regional coalition and legitimacy
The administration of President Donald Trump has been actively pressing Gulf states to join the US-Israeli campaign. Diplomatic sources indicate that the president is keen to demonstrate regional support to bolster the international legitimacy of the military action and strengthen his standing at home.
However, Gulf governments remain cautious about formal involvement. While the United States claims to be crushing the ability of the Iranian military to produce or launch weapons, individual states fear unilateral action could expose them to severe retaliation.
So far, a unified response from the Gulf Cooperation Council has proved elusive, with only the United Arab Emirates commenting publicly to emphasize its right to self-defence while avoiding broader escalation.
Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth indicated that regional partners are increasing their cooperation, particularly regarding integrated air defence systems.
Despite this, analysts observe a “calculated restraint” as these nations attempt to balance the immediate danger of Iranian strikes against the long-term risks of a full-scale regional war.
Strategic dilemmas and human costs
The impact of the war extends beyond physical destruction, threatening the image of stability essential for the Gulf’s economic diversification efforts. There are concerns that a premature American withdrawal would leave regional states to confront a hostile neighbor alone.
Some analysts suggest that since much of the region’s energy flows to Asia, powers such as China may eventually play a role in securing maritime routes.
The conflict has already resulted in significant casualties and damage. U.S. Central Command reports approximately 200 American troops wounded and 13 service members killed since retaliatory strikes began.
Furthermore, the United States has conducted strikes against more than 7,000 targets inside Iran, while losing roughly a dozen MQ-9 Reaper drones.
Amidst the fighting, Vice President JD Vance has voiced strong support for the handling of the conflict, dismissing suggestions that his past scepticism of foreign intervention puts him at odds with the president.
He emphasized his trust in the current administration to avoid the mistakes of previous conflicts while ensuring the security of the American people.
