We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.
Contrary to the belief that Gulf states always wanted a hardline US policy on Iran, their perspective shifted after 2019. When Iran attacked Saudi and UAE assets and the Trump administration failed to respond, they realized the US was an unreliable defender. This prompted them to make their own peace with Iran, a policy directly undermined by the recent US-led war.
Shattered by their vulnerability and perceived US unreliability during the Iran conflict, Gulf states are poised for a defense spending spree. Rather than relying solely on the US, they are likely to diversify their military suppliers to include Europe and South Korea, aiming for a more independent, 'armed neutrality' posture.
The US military action, especially the blockade of the Straits of Hormuz, is harming Gulf nations economically. Instead of strengthening an anti-Iran coalition, this 'half-baked' approach is eroding goodwill and pushing these crucial partners away, undermining the primary strategic benefit of the operation.
Iran's strategy involves striking non-combatant US allies like the UAE and Saudi Arabia. This imposes broad regional pain, demonstrating to the world that the economic and political costs of attacking Iran will be too high for anyone to bear, thus restoring long-term deterrence.
The conflict reveals a dual nature of US support. While advanced American military equipment like missile defense systems proved highly effective in mitigating attacks, the political commitment to intervene and protect Gulf interests has repeatedly disappointed regional leaders, creating a crisis of confidence.
Despite extensive lobbying, massive investments, and oil production increases aimed at pleasing the Trump administration, Gulf leaders failed to prevent a regional war. Their efforts were ultimately overridden by US prioritization of Israeli security interests, a major strategic miscalculation for the Gulf.
While the war highlights the danger of the US partnership, Gulf states are counterintuitively forced to deepen their reliance on American military support for immediate defense. This creates a strategic paradox: they need the US for short-term survival but see the alliance as a long-term liability.
Feeling exposed by a US they perceive as prioritizing Israel's defense, Gulf states are pursuing a "portfolio approach" to security. This involves creating smaller, multi-country defense pacts with nations like Pakistan, Turkey, and South Korea to build resilience beyond their traditional alliance with Washington.
Iran's attempt to sow regional instability by attacking nine Arab countries backfired. Instead of creating chaos, these militarily insignificant 'pinprick' attacks eliminated neutrality and pushed Gulf states to fully support the US-Israeli mission against Iran, viewing it as a necessary response.
The US withdrawal from the JCPOA and other actions have taught the world that American commitments are unreliable. Both adversaries and allies must now operate under the game-theory assumption that the U.S. will eventually defect from any agreement, forcing them to hedge and fundamentally altering global diplomacy.
The Trump administration's unilateral approach, demanding help from allies it has previously bullied, has backfired in the Iran conflict. Unlike past wars where coalitions shared the financial and military burden, the U.S. is now isolated and facing a "global raspberry," demonstrating the failure of transactional diplomacy.