The Iranian leadership made two major strategic mistakes. The first was failing to seize the opportunity to reach an agreement with the United States while the window for negotiations was still open — a step that could have spared the region further tension and instability. The second mistake was targeting the Gulf states, which had in fact been trying to act as mediators and put forward initiatives aimed at de-escalating the crisis and preventing a slide into a broader military confrontation.
In the lead-up to the U.S.–Israeli attack on Iran, Gulf countries made intensive diplomatic efforts to contain the crisis and stop it from spiraling. They understood that any military confrontation would not remain confined within Iran’s borders but would inevitably spill across the region, bringing with it serious political, security, and economic risks.
Yet, within hours of the first U.S. and Israeli strikes on February 28, their worst fears were realized. Iran began targeting American military installations across the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states—as well as Iraq and Jordan—steadily expanding its attacks to include civilian infrastructure.
Iran launched its attacks on the Gulf despite repeated assurances from several GCC countries, including long-time hosts of U.S. military bases, that neither their territory nor their airspace would be used to launch offensive operations against Iran, out of a commitment to maintaining neutrality and avoiding giving Tehran any pretext for attack.
Despite this, Iran turned its fire on its neighbors from the outset, exploiting their geographic proximity and centrality to the global economy to pressure Washington to halt its campaign.
Such actions reflect strategic desperation, but they also risk producing the opposite outcome from what Tehran intends. Rather than coercing the Gulf states into restraining the U.S., Iran’s attacks are turning them against it and eroding the value they place on neutrality and mediation. Some Gulf states have already threatened military retaliation if the strikes continue.
Even if the Islamic Republic survives this war, it will emerge more isolated and bereft of partners. More fundamentally, Iran’s decision raises a troubling question for the region: if neutrality offers no protection from being drawn into conflict, what incentive remains for states to sustain mediation or balanced diplomatic engagement in future crises?
Implications for Sovereignty, Civilian Vulnerability, and the Economy
Iran’s retaliatory campaign has gone well beyond the anticipated targeting of American military assets to affect civilian infrastructure across the Gulf.
Several hundred missiles and drones have been launched, killing at least four people and injuring more than one hundred. Among the targets were Kuwait and Abu Dhabi’s international airports, hotels in Dubai, and residential buildings in Bahrain. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Oman have also suffered repeated barrages, causing injuries and material damage. Although Gulf air defenses have intercepted most of the incoming projectiles, their collective image as the safe haven of the wider region has been deeply shaken.
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps claims to have struck oil tankers in the Gulf waters and moved to close the Strait of Hormuz, cutting Gulf energy exports to international markets—undermining both regional and global economies—a move that could also be directed at seeking a response from China, given its reliance on the affected energy flows. Airspace closures across the region have halted traffic at two of the world’s busiest aviation hubs—Doha and Dubai—underscoring the economic consequences of escalation.
These actions represent a direct challenge to Gulf sovereignty, with cascading implications for civilian security, investor confidence, and the region’s ambitious economic diversification programs. By weaponizing the Gulf’s geoeconomic centrality, Iran appears to be leveraging shared economic vulnerability as a tool of survival. In doing so, however, it is undermining its credibility with precisely those neighbors it may eventually need.
Strategic Intent or Tactical Overreach?
Iran’s decision to violate the Gulf neutrality was likely driven by its desperation, which only deepened after the devastating strike that reportedly killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and tens of other high-ranking officials. Iranian decision-makers may calculate that expanding the battlefield will compel Gulf states to act as a restraining force on the United States and pressure it to halt the fighting.
This is a perilous gamble for all involved, including Iran. Rather than generating leverage, the strategy could just as easily drive the Gulf states closer to aligning with the U.S. to oppose Iranian aggression, eliminating them as moderating actors seeking de-escalation.
Indeed, Gulf states are treating Iran’s attacks as a betrayal. Saudi Arabia denounced the strikes as “treacherous” and vowed a swift and overwhelming military response if they continue. Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman has already held consultations with President Donald Trump, signaling intensified coordination.
Speaking on behalf of the six GCC states and Jordan and Syria, Bahrain’s ambassador to the United Nations described the attacks as a threat to the security and stability of the entire region and affirmed their right to self-defense. In parallel, Gulf foreign ministers have issued coordinated statements condemning these attacks, while Saudi Arabia’s defense minister held urgent calls with regional and international counterparts regarding the situation. The Wall Street Journal, quoting officials in Gulf states, reported that among the scenarios being considered is the targeting of missile and drone launch sites inside Iranian territory.
History suggests that perceived external threats tend to generate security consolidation rather than fragmentation. The GCC has previously coordinated maritime security and joint defensive measures in response to regional instability. Under sustained attack, the likelihood of disjointed national responses is low. Iran’s strategy risks catalyzing precisely the kind of regional unity it sought to avoid.
Neutrality Under Pressure: The GCC Position
During the past few years of heightened tension between Iran and Western powers, GCC states have deliberately adopted a strategy of hedging, neutrality and mediation. Public statements consistently emphasized their refusal to participate in military confrontation despite their long-standing security ties to the United States, reflecting a shared understanding that regional war would be economically and politically catastrophic.
Oman and Qatar, in particular, built diplomatic credibility through sustained mediation efforts, including between Washington and Tehran. They have hosted talks, facilitated back-channel communication and attempted to prevent cyclical crises from tipping into open conflict.
However, effective mediation depends on trust, which in turn depends on the predictable behavior of all parties. When escalation spills into the territory of neutral actors, it erodes the very premise that allows them to serve as intermediaries.
Iran’s widening of the conflict directly undermines these mediation mechanisms. The Gulf states’ value as interlocutors has always rested on their ability to engage all sides without appearing aligned with any. Now, as they absorb the consequences of military escalation, their intermediary role becomes politically fraught at home and strategically suspected among the parties themselves. Mediation may slow under domestic pressure and security imperatives—even as the need for it grows more urgent. In effect, Iran risks weakening the very diplomatic channels that historically offered it pathways to de-escalation.
Jeopardizing the Offramp—and the Future
If the Islamic Republic survives the current war, its regional position will be weaker than at any point in its modern history. It will have lost senior leadership, suffer extensive military and infrastructural damage, and watch much of its regional network fray under sustained pressure. In that context, it can ill afford further estrangement from its Gulf neighbors, the very states that, until now, preserved channels of communication, resisted maximalist alignment with Washington, and invested political capital in de-escalation.
Yet by turning its fire on those neighbors—striking not only military installations but civilian infrastructure and economic arteries—Iran has jeopardized the residual goodwill that made quiet crisis management possible.
These attacks have posed a serious challenge to the foundations of diplomatic relations in the Middle East. If states that have clearly declared their refusal to take part in any confrontation begin to be treated as potential or legitimate targets, the strategic basis that governs their interactions becomes severely shaken, and the space for dialogue and diplomatic balance narrows to an unprecedented degree.
In the event that the political track recedes, the alternative may be a slide into a broader military confrontation, with all the grave risks this carries for the region’s stability and security, and for its present and long-term future.
