As the United States appears increasingly likely to launch strikes against Iran, a growing sense of alarm is rippling through Washington’s allies in the Persian Gulf. These nations, which host U.S. Military bases and face the prospect of Iranian retaliation, are actively lobbying the White House to de-escalate the situation, fearing a wider regional conflict.
The scale of the U.S. Military mobilization is substantial. According to reports, at least 108 air tankers are currently in or en route to the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility. Military analysts suggest this build-up indicates not only an imminent operation but also one that could be sustained over a longer period than the limited strikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities last June.
A prevailing sense of pessimism is taking hold among regional observers. Given the extent of the military preparations, some believe there is little opportunity for President Donald Trump to withdraw from the brink without appearing to lose face.
However, while U.S. Military planners finalize target lists, Iraq and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states are primarily focused on the risks. “They may like to see the Iranian leadership weakened, but all of them are more concerned about a scenario of chaos and uncertainty and the possibility of more radical elements coming to power there,” said Anna Jacobs Khalaf, a Gulf analyst at the Arab Gulf States Institute, in a recent interview with Al Jazeera.
Since January, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman, along with Turkey and Egypt, have been engaged in intensive diplomatic efforts to persuade both Washington and Tehran to step back from the precipice. This diplomatic push is not motivated by sympathy for Iran, but by the realization that these nations would be on the front lines of any Iranian response, and would bear the brunt of the consequences should the Iranian regime collapse.
Regional analyst Galip Dalay notes that a collapse of the current Iranian regime would benefit Israel, a rising power in the region. “Iran’s power and ambition across the region is diminished, and the prospect of an Iran-centric order has receded,” Dalay wrote for Chatham House. “For Middle Eastern leaders, the threats have changed: the greatest risks are now an expansionist and aggressive Israel, and the chaos of a potentially collapsed Iranian state.”
Bader al-Saif, an assistant history professor at Kuwait University, echoed this sentiment, telling the New York Times that bombing Iran would run counter to the interests of the Gulf states. “Neutralizing the current regime, whether through regime change or internal leadership reconfiguration, can potentially translate into the unparalleled hegemony of Israel, which won’t serve the Gulf States.”
For Iraq, a predominantly Shi’a nation, the risk of political and social unrest is particularly acute. After decades of instability following the 2003 U.S. Invasion, Iraq is still struggling to establish a stable political system. Baghdad is keen to avoid being drawn into a conflict. Sources suggest that smaller, hardline Shi’a groups, such as Kataib Hezbollah and Harakat Nujaba, might be compelled to attack U.S. Troops in the region in support of Iran. However, the main Shi’a political forces, including the State of the Law Coalition and the Fatah Alliance, view a U.S.-Iran conflict on Iraqi soil as an existential threat to their fragile sovereignty.
Tehran also has a vested interest in keeping Iraq neutral. As it seeks to ensure its own survival, Iran needs a functional neighbor and trading partner capable of purchasing Iranian electricity, rather than a country descending into failure, and chaos.
The dangers facing the Gulf are multifaceted. First, there is the immediate physical threat. Iran has repeatedly signaled that U.S. Bases in the region are legitimate targets. The attack on Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar in June 2025, while resulting in no casualties, remains a stark reminder of Iran’s capabilities. Any sustained campaign could see facilities in Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain come under fire from Iranian missiles or drone attacks. Iranian officials, including Ali Shamkhani, have indicated that any future response would be more severe than the symbolic strike on Al Udeid.
The 2019 attack on Saudi oil facilities demonstrated Iran’s ability to strike critical infrastructure in the Gulf states. With little to lose in a conflict perceived as existential, the motivation to target countries hosting U.S. Military bases would likely increase.
Even if Gulf states are spared direct Iranian attacks, there would be significant economic consequences. These nations are striving to diversify their economies and attract foreign investment, but the threat of regional war would likely trigger a flight of capital and talent. A potential refugee crisis is also a major concern. The Iranian port of Bandar Abbas is a short distance from Dubai, and a conflict that devastates Iran’s economy could lead to a large influx of displaced people into the UAE.
The threat to the Strait of Hormuz is another critical issue. Iranian officials have warned that all options are on the table in the event of war, including blocking or mining the strait. While a full closure is unlikely, as it would harm Iran’s own oil exports to China, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGC) is reportedly preparing for a “smart” closure – selectively interdicting Western-linked tankers while allowing Chinese oil purchases to pass. As demonstrated by the Houthi blockade of the Red Sea, even the threat of closure can dramatically increase insurance premiums and global oil prices, potentially fueling inflation.
there is a heightened risk that a U.S. Military attack could push Iran to abandon its stated nuclear doctrine and pursue weaponization – ironically, the very outcome the war is intended to prevent. Short of a full-scale occupation, there are few obstacles to Iran developing a nuclear bomb should the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei make that decision.
This would leave the GCC countries in a precarious position – living next to a potentially nuclear-armed, revisionist Iran, potentially prompting them to seek their own nuclear deterrent and plunging the region into a destabilizing arms race.
This broader fear of destabilization is why Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman publicly ruled out allowing Saudi airspace to be used for an attack on Iran, and why Anwar Gargash, a key advisor to the UAE president, has called for a “long-term diplomatic solution” between Washington and Tehran.
Despite the obvious risks, the Trump administration’s approach has been perplexing. Even as Iran has offered concessions on the nuclear issue, including suspending enrichment and offering economic incentives, Trump appears to be demanding complete capitulation – not only on the nuclear file, but also on its ballistic missile program, a red line for Iran.
Meanwhile, the military build-up continues, causing profound anxiety in Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, Doha, Muscat, Baghdad, and across the Middle East. America’s Gulf allies are not advocating for war; they are desperately trying to prevent it. Trump would be well-advised to heed their counsel – for his own, and America’s, sake.
“The repercussions of a state collapse would far exceed what the Middle East has experienced as a result of conflict in Iraq, Syria, or Yemen, whether in the form of instability, migration, radicalism, the proliferation of armed groups, or regional spillover,” Dalay wrote. “Regional leaders believe the U.S. Must give regional diplomacy a real chance. The alternative is a devastating war and another catastrophic cycle of conflict.”
