logo
Israel attacks Iran: Will Gulf states lead or be left behind?

Israel attacks Iran: Will Gulf states lead or be left behind?

Middle East Eye6 hours ago

By all indications, the Middle East stands at an inflection point. For more than a decade, the US has tried to step back from its historical role as the region's principal powerbroker, seeking to shift its strategic focus to Asia.
Since former President Barack Obama's 'pivot', every administration has made gestures towards disengagement - only to be pulled back in by crises, some of which they neither initiated nor fully controlled.
But the beginning of President Donald Trump's second term carried a real chance for strategic disengagement. The Trump administration's purging of neoconservatives and doubling down on 'America First' gave the Gulf states a clear signal: Washington was stepping aside.
For once, they had to step up - not just as financiers of regional order, but as strategic architects.
To their credit, the Gulf states - particularly Qatar, Oman and Saudi Arabia - rose to the occasion. In coordination with Trump's Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, they worked steadily towards a new nuclear framework with Tehran.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
The outlines of a regional detente began to take shape. The Gulf states thought they were transitioning from sponsors to strategists, drawing up plans for economic entanglement and integration. This could have become the Middle East's 'end of history' moment - a soft-power-driven, non-hegemonic order rooted in interdependence.
But that vision failed to reckon with one crucial actor: Israel.
Dramatic escalation
Since the Hamas attack on 7 October 2023, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reversed a long-standing strategic posture. From 'mowing the lawn' with calculated, periodic strikes, Israel has transformed into a chainsaw operator: disruptive, maximalist and ideologically rigid.
While a decisive victory in Gaza remains elusive, Israel has successfully fought Hezbollah to a standstill and degraded its leadership structure. Flush with these tactical wins, Netanyahu has now escalated dramatically, initiating strikes deep inside Iran. His ambition: to force regime change and pre-empt a negotiated settlement between Washington and Tehran.
Netanyahu's calculus is deeply personal and political. With Gulf-backed diplomacy gaining momentum and anti-Iran hawks pushed out of Washington, the Israeli prime minister feared that his influence was waning.
Israel, a destructive hegemon, is effective at degrading its foes, but lacks the will, legitimacy and capacity to build anything durable in their place
By initiating a high-stakes confrontation, he has not only reasserted his relevance, but also sought to corner Trump into a potentially long, destabilising conflict - thus killing the Iran deal before it could materialise.
At its core, strategy is about creating power or influence with the means available to you. It's about reshaping your environment to reflect your interests. The Gulf states have both the means and the moment. But they are hesitating.
In many ways, the Gulf states find themselves in a situation reminiscent of the 1973 oil crisis, when Riyadh used oil as a geopolitical weapon to reshape American foreign policy. Today, the Gulf states enjoy far greater entanglements in the financial, energy and diplomatic realms.
But while they have succeeded in translating these entanglements into global influence, they remain reluctant to wield them to shape Washington's regional posture.
Despite having substantial leverage - ranging from ties with Iran, to influence over actors like the Houthis or even Hamas - the Gulf states continue to prefer soft, transactional statecraft. Courting Trump with investment deals or energy alignment is no match for Israel's coercive diplomacy and military brinkmanship.
Regional transformation
Israel, by contrast, has maximised the tools at its disposal - military technological superiority, an intelligence edge, and influence and information operations - to set the terms of Washington's Middle East policy.
That these moves run counter to long-term US interests seems immaterial. Netanyahu, who since the 1980s has been a vocal neoconservative advocate for drawing the US into military interventions in Iraq and Iran, is not interested in inclusive regional stability.
He wants to dictate a regional transformation according to an Israeli interpretation of friend and foe. His regime change fantasies appear now finally within reach.
But Iran is not Iraq. Neither the US nor Israel is likely to put boots on the ground. Instead, what's emerging is a long-term strategy of degradation - hollowing out the Islamic Republic, one missile and air strike at a time.
Assassinating Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei would set in motion a potentially long and contested succession crisis. The endgame may be a military-industrial dictatorship dominated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), or a failed state where power remains concentrated in a besieged Tehran.
Israel could retreat behind its buffers in Jordan and Iraq, while the Gulf states would inherit the instability to come.
The Gulf would be left next to a broken neighbour with porous borders and contested sovereignty, and full of armed networks operating, as they have for decades, almost autonomously - networks that would not disappear, but reconstitute as fragmented nodes of resistance, trading arms and ideology in equal measure.
Indeed, the greatest irony may be that by trying to eliminate the state behind the IRGC, Israel will only make the IRGC more ungovernable.
Emerging order
The Shia Islamist militant networks predate the Islamic Republic, having operated in the Lebanese Civil War before the Iranian Revolution. Stripped of a central authority, these networks will adapt and mutate, becoming less accountable and less deterrable.
The emerging regional order will be one without balance. Israel, a destructive hegemon, is effective at degrading its foes, but lacks the will, legitimacy and capacity to build anything durable in their place. The Gulf, meanwhile, will remain surrounded by hostile non-state actors - Hezbollah, the Houthis and various Iranian paramilitary groups - now decoupled from Tehran, but no less lethal.
Occasional containment strikes by Israel may limit their capacity, but the region will be unlikely to reach an equilibrium of stability.
Worse still, Israel's trajectory under Netanyahu is taking the state towards a Jewish fundamentalism that is increasingly isolationist, belligerent and indifferent to the interests of its Arab neighbours - let alone the Palestinians it occupies. Such a state is ill-suited to be a pillar of any consensual regional order. Instead, it acts as a strategic wrecking ball: shattering balances, but incapable of setting new ones.
Why Israel's attacks are backfiring as Iranians rally around the flag Read More »
Amid this backdrop, the Gulf states must embrace their role as strategic players, not just financiers.
This means transforming their influence into leverage. They should not only rebuild the Gulf lobby in Washington to represent their interests, but also actively coordinate pressure on the Trump administration to re-engage with diplomacy, not escalation. A Qatari-Omani diplomatic bridge between the Trump administration and Tehran appears to be already in the making.
Secondly, they must draw on their diverse geopolitical partnerships. A multipolar world gives the Gulf states options outside of Washington. China and Russia may not replace the US, but their growing footprint allows for hedging strategies. Aligning more closely with Beijing on economic integration, or with Moscow on security dialogues, creates external pressure on the US to take Gulf concerns more seriously.
Finally, the Gulf states must recognise that they are indispensable not just financially or diplomatically, but also strategically. They sit at the centre of energy, trade, and the geo-strategic buffer zone between the Global East and West, as well as North and South. Their ability to mediate, to finance peace, to engage adversaries, and to balance great powers is unique. But they need to develop the confidence to use this power.
The Gulf has a choice. It can rise to shape the future of the Middle East - or be left cleaning up its ruins.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Will he, won't he? The world waits as Trump considers attacking Iran
Will he, won't he? The world waits as Trump considers attacking Iran

The National

time22 minutes ago

  • The National

Will he, won't he? The world waits as Trump considers attacking Iran

In a speech while visiting Riyadh last month, US President Donald Trump attacked America's foreign policy record in the Middle East, saying the neocons who had tried to 'nation build' had wrecked far more countries than they had constructed. 'The interventionalists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand,' he told the Arab Islamic American Summit. The President's remarks found a receptive audience from Arab observers, who hope America's future ties to the Middle East will be based primarily on investment partnerships rather than destabilising military entanglements. But barely one month later, Mr Trump appears poised to let loose America's dogs of war and intervene in a complex society, by joining Israel as it strikes Iran. For now, Mr Trump is maintaining a degree of strategic ambiguity, saying he ' may or may not ' strike Iran. But he has dropped some very heavy hints that the US will be helping Israel as it strikes suspected Iranian nuclear sites. On Tuesday, he demanded the ' unconditional surrender ' of Tehran's government and said the US could kill supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – but prefers not to, 'for now'. Mr Trump has consistently said that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, but his increasingly bellicose tone marks a departure from his previous insistence that a deal could be reached with Tehran over its nuclear programme. On Wednesday, he said it was 'very late to be talking' and seemed to rebuff what he claimed was an Iranian attempt to restart talks. The vibe in Washington definitely feels more war-war than jaw-jaw. Iran denied it had asked to 'grovel at the gates of the White House', and the Ayatollah has called Mr Trump's remarks 'unacceptable'. Much has been made of another potential restraining factor ahead of a war announcement, namely Mr Trump's Make America Great Again base, which has long insisted the US must not enter another costly overseas conflict. Maga maven Marjorie Taylor Greene said this week that anyone wishing for war with Iran was ' disgusting ' and lamented America's previous military engagements in the Middle East. 'Anyone slobbering for the US to become fully involved in the Israel/Iran war is not America First/Maga,' she wrote on X. 'Wishing for murder of innocent people is disgusting. We are sick and tired of foreign wars. All of them.' Although he has said he wants to be remembered as a unifier and peacemaker, Mr Trump seems to be leaning into joining Israel's war – and to an extent already has. The Pentagon has assets positioned across the Middle East and is helping to defend Israeli skies from Iranian missiles. And as we saw during his military parade at the weekend, which depending on your viewpoint was either a badly attended embarrassment or a patriotic triumph of military might, he loves looking at American materiel in action. 'Nobody does it better than the good ol' USA,' he said on Tuesday when extolling American military gear, saying that 'we' had complete control of Iranian skies, hinting at close co-ordination with Israel as it bombs Tehran. When asked whether he was concerned a new war would alienate his Maga base, Mr Trump shrugged it off, rightly surmising that there is very little he can do to upset his true believers. 'My supporters are more in love with me today, and I'm in love with them more than they were even at election time,' he said. Some members of Congress have also begun to assert that they should have a say in whether America goes to war, with bipartisan legislation being introduced to force a vote on military action. But any prospect of the rubber-stamp Republicans opposing in a meaningful way is remote. For now, it appears Republican hawks and Israel have more of the President's ear than the Maga wing of his party. 'I'm not looking to fight. But if it's a choice between fighting and having a nuclear weapon, you have to do what you have to do," he said in the Oval Office on Wednesday.

Trump promised not to go to war. His most ardent supporters want him to keep his word
Trump promised not to go to war. His most ardent supporters want him to keep his word

Middle East Eye

time31 minutes ago

  • Middle East Eye

Trump promised not to go to war. His most ardent supporters want him to keep his word

"This war isn't about Iran's nuclear weapons for Israel, it is about one thing: regime change. Hear me now: this is not going to stop at some bombing campaigns around Iran's nuclear programme. That's just the appetiser, not the entree... Does America really want to be Israel's dance partner to this siren song?" If those words sound like they came from a progressive, Bernie Sanders-aligned, anti-imperial voice, they did not. Those are the words of former congressman, Matt Gaetz, one of the most loyal supporters of US President Donald Trump and his Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement since its inception. Gaetz - since resigning from the House of Representatives after a slew of ethics violations - now has his own show on the far-right TV channel One America Network. "When you call someone a modern-day Hitler, it is a permission structure to kill them," Gaetz went on to say after playing a clip of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu telling ABC News that Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is a "modern-day Hitler". New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Gaetz then went on to interview his former colleague, Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, another vocal and often controversial "America Firster". "Matt, I see it just as you do, and you laid that out so well," she said. "We've watched for decades propaganda news. I'll call out Fox News and The New York Post. They're known to be the neocon[servative] network news... the American people have been brainwashed into believing that America has to engage in these foreign wars in order for us to survive. And it's absolutely not true." Greene has been urging the Trump administration to stay out of Israel's attacks on Iran since they began last Friday. On Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump told senior aides he had approved plans to attack Iran but had not yet given the final order to carry them out. A new paradigm? The questions and posture that challenge the American establishment's penchant for war have not, in recent memory, been as organised, as targeted, or as influential as the voices of MAGA's most well-known cast of characters. Take Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News pundit, who appeared on Steve Bannon's War Room show on YouTube earlier this week. Bannon himself is a former White House strategist from Trump's first term in office, and remains one of the most influential people in the MAGA circuit. "I grew up in a world that espoused violence. That's what the US government does," Carlson told Bannon. "If you think - and I said this to an Israeli official - if you think I'm anti-Israel, man, you have lost the plot," he said of the anti-war stance he's adopted. "Let's have a rational conversation about what our aims are here. And maybe you can convince me that we need to support a regime change war in Iran. Tell me how that plays out in a country of 90 million people. Have you thought it through? Do you even care? And the answer is no," Carlson said. State Department pushes 'peace' narrative as Trump threatens Iran Read More » "You may have a plan for regime change, it's fine, but you got to bring the American people on," Bannon agreed. As of Wednesday, that clip had some 7,000 views. Carlson then interviewed Bannon on his show on YouTube, and the one-hour and 18-minute conversation generated one million views in less than 24 hours. Bannon outlined the three pillars on which he says Trump was elected: "Stop the forever wars, seal the border and deport the illegal aliens - the illegal invaders - and redo the commercial relationships in the world around trade deals." Reneging on one of them would potentially undo the others, Bannon said, with a stark warning. "I'm a big supporter of Israel, yes. And I'm telling people, hey, if we get sucked into this war - which inexorably looks like it's going to happen on the combat side - it's... going to thwart what we're doing with the most important thing, which is the deportation of the illegal alien invaders that are here. If we don't do that, we don't have a country," he said of Trump's plan to deport at least one million undocumented immigrants every year, as well as foreigners who may have civil or criminal violations. Bannon also cautioned that joining and expanding the war on Iran could mean "the end of Israel, because of the way these decisions have been made". Carlson, expressing remorse for supporting the invasion of Iraq in 2003, said optics and public opinion should be critical to guiding the White House's decisions. "[Abraham] Lincoln told us, what you need is popular opinion to have your back. And we don't do enough about educating the American people on what reality is," he said. Much like the allegation that Iraq had a weapon of mass destruction, Bannon said Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who was handpicked by Trump, confirmed to lawmakers in a public hearing in March that Iran was not assessed to be close to building a nuclear bomb. "They don't have a programme. They haven't had a programme," Bannon emphasised. Trump takes on his base In a new interview with Texas Senator and longtime war hawk Ted Cruz, posted on Wednesday on YouTube, Carlson repeatedly challenged him on Iran's population, its makeup, and precisely how the Bible says that Christians must support Israel (which Cruz cites as his reasoning). "I was taught from the Bible, those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed. And from my perspective, I want to be on the blessing side of things," Cruz, a Republican who did not support Trump until he became president in 2017, told Carlson on his show. Carlson asked him where in the Bible it said that, and Cruz said he doesn't remember. "You don't have context for it. You don't know where in the Bible it is, but that's like your theology? I'm confused. What does that even mean... We are commanded, as Christians, to support the government of Israel?" "We are commanded to support Israel," Cruz responded, as the two continuously cut each other off. "God is talking about the nation of Israel." "Is that the current borders, the current leadership?" Carlson asked. US Senator Ted Cruz faces backlash for not knowing basic facts about Iran Read More » "Yes, nations exists, and he's discussing a nation," Cruz said. The Iran hawks in Congress, all of whom are also staunch supporters of Israel, have been lobbying the White House to join Israel's war. Many of them take cues from pro-Israel lobbying groups, which have also dispatched members of proxy think tanks like the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) to go on channels like Fox News and advocate for full US military engagement. As the debate rages, Trump himself was on the defensive in an interview with The Atlantic. "For those people who say they want peace - you can't have peace if Iran has a nuclear weapon. So for all of those wonderful people who don't want to do anything about Iran having a nuclear weapon - that's not peace," he said. "Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb, very simple. Regardless - Israel or not Israel - Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb," he added. On Monday, he took aim directly at Carlson. 'I don't know what Tucker Carlson is saying. Let him go get a television network and say it so that people listen,' Trump told reporters, implying that Carlson no longer had the viewership and reach he had as a mainstream media broadcaster. And as of Sunday, the US was not yet operationally engaged in the war, Trump told ABC News. "We're not involved in it. It's possible we could get involved. But we are not at this moment involved," the president said. But that's not what Cruz appeared to let slip in his discussion with Carlson. Iran is "trying to murder Donald Trump," Cruz said. "We're carrying out military strikes today." "You said Israel was?" Carlson asked. "I've said we - Israel is leading them, but we're supporting them," Cruz responded. "Well this is you breaking news here," Carlson responded, alluding to a White House spokesperson who denied US operational involvement in a post on X. "We're not bombing them, Israel's bombing them," Cruz said. "You just said we were." "We are supporting Israel," Cruz said. The US president has been cryptic in his messaging on what course of action he will take next in Iran, giving mixed signals regarding being open to talks but saying it's too late to talk and then also saying that the US may strike, but they may not. Trump's MAGA base, however, has not yet given up in trying to dissuade the American president from what they think will become another costly entanglement in the Middle East - and a potential fracture in the Republican Party's voter base.

Iran calls on UN chief to take Israeli conflict to Security Council
Iran calls on UN chief to take Israeli conflict to Security Council

The National

time2 hours ago

  • The National

Iran calls on UN chief to take Israeli conflict to Security Council

Iran on Wednesday called on UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to invoke Article 99 of the UN Charter as the conflict with Israel continues. Article 99 of the charter empowers the secretary general to bring to the Security Council 's attention any matter that may threaten international peace and security. The clause is rarely used and allows the UN chief to independently initiate action by the 15-member body in response to a potential crisis. 'Failure to act at this pivotal and perilous moment would constitute a profound abdication of the Security Council's responsibilities,' said a letter sent to the UN, seen by The National. In December 2023, Mr Guterres invoked Article 99 for the first time during his tenure to warn of the global threat posed by the escalating conflict between Israel and Hamas. It was only the fourth formal invocation of the article in UN history, with the previous instance occurring in 1989. Official UN documents describe Article 99 as having a preventive function, raising awareness at an international level that an already severe crisis could worsen. Iran's letter pointed to 'mounting and undeniable evidence of direct United States involvement in this unlawful campaign of aggressive war', listing in particular US President Donald Trump's implied threat to assassinate supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. 'These reckless and inflammatory statements, especially when issued by the head of state of a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, constitute a grave and flagrant violation of international law,' the letter reads. Iran also requested an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, amid a 'dangerously escalated situation'. 'The Security Council cannot remain a passive bystander,' it said. Meanwhile, Mr Guterres expressed profound alarm over the escalation in the conflict between Israel and Iran, and warned against any military interventions in the Middle East. 'I strongly appeal to all to avoid any further internationalisation of the conflict,' Mr Guterres said in a statement, repeating his call for a ceasefire. 'Any additional military interventions could have enormous consequences, not only for those involved, but for the whole region and for international peace and security at large.' He also condemned the 'tragic and unnecessary loss of lives and injuries to civilians, and damage to homes and critical civilian infrastructure". 'Diplomacy remains the best and only way to address concerns regarding Iran's nuclear programme and regional security issues,' Mr Guterres said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store