The Gulf Between the American Umbrella and the Iranian Threat
The problem facing the Gulf states today is not limited to Iranian missiles and drones, but lies in the fact that the region has transformed into a confrontation arena over which the Gulf states have no control over its inception or the conditions of its conclusion.
The United States launched the "Epic Fury" operation on February 28, with broad declared objectives that included destroying Iran’s missile, drone, and naval capabilities, as well as its defense industrial base. However, Iran remains capable of launching missiles and drones, threatening navigation, and targeting Gulf facilities.
President Donald Trump’s statements oscillate between threats of destruction, hints at negotiation, declarations of achieving objectives, and a return to escalation. This fluctuation does not indicate a lack of American power, but rather reveals the absence of a stable, clearly articulated political strategy for the post-force-use phase. The result is what I previously described in an interview with Al Jazeera English a few days ago as "soft escalation": intermittent strikes and threats that do not amount to all-out war, yet prevent stability and keep the Gulf under prolonged security and economic pressure.
Politics News
Newsletter
The solution does not lie in waiting for an American strike that would settle the issue with Iran, nor in separate, temporary Gulf understandings with Tehran. The way forward begins with building a unified Gulf position that leads to a gradual process toward a binding regional security arrangement, involving both the Gulf states and Iran, under clear international guarantees.
This includes halting attacks, refraining from using Gulf states’ territories to launch offensive operations without the explicit consent of the concerned state, protecting navigation, establishing a mechanism for monitoring and verification, and responding to violations.
However, reaching this goal is difficult because Gulf states differ in their assessment of the threat, rely militarily on the United States, while Washington itself lacks a fixed vision of the endgame.
Furthermore, Iran views American bases in the Gulf as part of the battle, using attacks on the region to pressure Washington.
What is required is not abandoning the security partnership with the United States, but transforming it from a relationship based on security dependence into a genuine partnership grounded in consultation, consent, and shared decision-making.
The Gulf is surrounded by an American security umbrella that has provided it with early warning, air defense, and intelligence information. However, it has not prevented the states from being subjected to attacks, nor has it granted them security immunity from the repercussions of confrontation. Conversely, Gulf states still lack a comprehensive strategy that addresses military, political, and economic challenges as interconnected files rather than separate issues.
In the absence of such a strategy, the Gulf bears the cost of decisions made by others without being a genuine partner in shaping them. Today, the Gulf is closer to a contiguous geographical space than to a political and security bloc that moves with a single will and transcends its differences to defend the broader Gulf interest.
