The Gulf states are navigating one of the most precarious geopolitical moments in decades. They find themselves at the intersection of a dangerous escalation between Israel and Iran, and a set of strategic shifts that may reshape the entire regional order.
On June 13, 2025, the confrontation between Israel and Iran reached unprecedented levels following an Israeli aerial strike on sensitive Iranian military and nuclear facilities. The attack killed hundreds of civilians and nuclear scientists, as well as high-ranking commanders in the Iranian military and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
Iran responded swiftly with a barrage of ballistic missiles and drones targeting deep inside Israeli territory. The attacks inflicted human and material losses and coincided with ongoing nuclear negotiations between Tehran and Washington, brokered by Oman—an indication of the complex strategic motivations behind Israel’s actions.
While the Gulf states have largely condemned the Israeli strikes, they have done so with visible caution and disarray. This hesitation reflects deep concern over the potential consequences of a broader regional war, particularly the risk that U.S. military bases across the Gulf could be targeted in any Iranian retaliation following direct American involvement.
This military escalation cannot be divorced from Israel’s broader transformation in its regional security doctrine. No longer confined to deterrence, Israel now appears to be orchestrating a reconfiguration of regional power dynamics. Several Western media outlets and Israeli officials have hinted that the ultimate objective of the operation is not merely to cripple Iran’s nuclear capabilities or missile infrastructure, but to destabilize or even dismantle the Iranian regime itself.
The Israeli offensive primarily targeted uranium enrichment sites and military command centers associated with the IRGC. Civilian infrastructure, including state television and public utilities, were also hit. Israel had raised its military alert status in mid-May and reportedly coordinated intelligence-level planning with the United States. Washington, for its part, evacuated diplomatic staff families from its embassies in Baghdad and several Gulf capitals—a move that strongly suggests prior coordination.
Iran’s response was forceful and organized. It launched successive waves of missiles and drones, some of which penetrated Israeli air defenses and hit key targets in Tel Aviv and the Negev, including the Ministry of Defense, a major research institute, and key military installations.
Although the U.S. claimed it did not participate directly in the Israeli strikes, it reaffirmed Israel’s “right to self-defense” and deployed additional military assets to the region, including an aircraft carrier in the eastern Mediterranean and heightened alert levels at Gulf bases. Britain and France called for an immediate cessation of hostilities and criticized Israel’s unilateral action, while simultaneously affirming their commitment to Israel’s security. Russia—nominally Iran’s ally—issued only muted warnings against escalation and offered to mediate.
The Gulf Response
Gulf capitals have displayed varying and often contradictory responses, revealing deep divergence in how each state assesses the unfolding threat. These discrepancies are understandable, given that most Gulf states host major U.S. military installations and would thus be on the frontlines of any Iranian retaliation.
Beyond the immediate military risk, this moment exposes a deeper strategic dilemma: how can Gulf states preserve their security partnerships with the U.S. and Israel while avoiding becoming primary targets in a widening conflict? And, more critically, what geopolitical and sectarian vacuum might they inherit if the Iranian regime collapses? How would the future of a vast, populous, majority-Shi’a nation be reshaped—and who would manage it?
Economically, the confrontation has already caused global oil prices to spike by nearly 12%, with further increases likely amid speculation of American entry into the war. Fears of a possible closure of the Strait of Hormuz or attacks on Gulf oil infrastructure have reignited concerns about the vulnerability of energy exports. Prolonged escalation could result in lasting economic losses for Gulf economies, which remain heavily dependent on oil revenues.
On the security front, Iranian-aligned proxies pose a direct threat to Gulf states. The Houthis in Yemen, the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq, and Hezbollah in Lebanon are all capable of opening additional fronts. Recent satellite imagery also suggests that Iran has reinforced its military presence around the Strait of Hormuz and key oil facilities, signaling potential escalation in maritime domains.
Domestically, Prime Minister Netanyahu is grappling with severe political crises and mounting public protests over his Gaza war policies. For his government, the escalation may offer an opportunity to unite a fractured public, and some evidence suggests this has already occurred. However, Iran’s ability to inflict painful retaliatory strikes has sparked growing dissent within Israel, with a segment of the population voicing renewed opposition to the war.
Conversely, Iran faces internal economic and political distress, which may compel its leadership to avoid expanding the conflict. The risk of domestic upheaval, should the economic toll of war rise, is not lost on Tehran’s political elite. While some Western analyses suggest that the Iranian regime is on the brink of collapse, such assessments likely overstate the immediacy of that threat.
Future Scenarios
The trajectory of the crisis is now dependent on which of several possible scenarios materializes. One possibility is a limited, contained escalation, capped by a rapid international diplomatic intervention. Another, more dangerous scenario involves a full-scale regional war that pulls the U.S. directly into the conflict and activates Iran’s regional allies—placing Gulf security under direct and sustained threat.
A third, less frequently discussed scenario, is that Israel capitalizes on the collapse of Iranian deterrence to impose a new regional order—politically and militarily—one that reshapes power structures for decades to come.
What Israel appears to be pursuing today goes far beyond security or containment. Tel Aviv is moving toward a broader hegemonic project—an attempt to redefine the balance of power across the region. Should it succeed in neutralizing Iran’s influence, Israel would likely enter a phase of strategic expansion, one that may blur the lines between adversaries and allies alike.
For the Gulf states, reactive diplomacy is no longer sufficient. They must engage in a deeper reassessment of their security postures in light of Israel’s evolving strategic doctrine. Passive alignment with the status quo may prove costly.
The Gulf must move beyond crisis management. It is time to recalibrate strategic thinking and play an active role in shaping a new regional architecture—one not built on lopsided power equations that undermine Gulf interests. Only then can these states act as influential stakeholders in the region’s future, rather than mere bystanders or casualties of conflict.
