Authors: Nader and Brigitte Panah-Izadi
How the erosion of wartime norms is pulling reluctant Gulf states toward the center of the Iran conflict
For decades, the Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf feared that any direct confrontation between Iran and the United States—or Iran and Israel—would eventually spill across their region. That scenario has now materialized.
The current war is not one the Gulf states sought or supported. On the contrary, governments such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar spent years attempting to reduce regional tensions and discourage escalation between Washington and Tehran. Yet despite these efforts, they now find themselves exposed to the conflict’s most destabilizing consequences.
What concerns Gulf leaders most is not simply the fighting itself, but the erosion of the informal rules that historically limited how wars in the region were conducted. As these restraints weaken, the conflict increasingly threatens the economic infrastructure, civilian systems, and strategic stability upon which the Gulf states depend.
The Erosion of Wartime Restraints
Even during periods of intense rivalry, conflicts in the Middle East were often constrained by informal red lines. Energy infrastructure—the backbone of regional economies and a critical component of global markets—was widely regarded as too dangerous to target directly. During the Iran–Iraq War, for instance, both sides generally avoided systematic attacks on core oil production facilities.
That restraint belongs to the past especially since the attack of the largest Iranian gas field of South Park providing most of the country’s civilian gas supply.
In the current conflict, economic infrastructure has increasingly become part of the battlefield. Attacks have disrupted industries that are not only vital to Gulf economies but also embedded in global supply chains.
Among the most significant vulnerabilities are those linked to fertilizer production. Nitrogen-based fertilizers—derived from natural gas and essential for modern agriculture—form a critical component of global food supply. Strikes affecting Gulf facilities have reportedly disrupted production chains, including potassium processing in Qatar, raising concerns about downstream impacts on agricultural markets.
Other strategic industries are also at risk. The Gulf region is a major supplier of helium, an indispensable input in semiconductor manufacturing and advanced technological processes. Disruptions to this supply could reverberate through global electronics production.
Yet the most alarming shift for Gulf governments lies in the growing vulnerability of civilian infrastructure essential to basic survival.
Desalination plants provide the overwhelming majority of drinking water in Gulf countries. Unlike regions with large natural freshwater reserves, Gulf states depend almost entirely on these facilities. In some cases, national potable water reserves would last only a few days if desalination capacity were destroyed.
The targeting of—or even credible threat to—such infrastructure therefore potentially transforms the conflict from an economic and military challenge into a potential humanitarian crisis.
Strategic Signaling Through Civilian Infrastructure
Iran’s response to U.S. and Israeli strikes has reportedly included attacks on civilian infrastructure across several Gulf states, including desalination facilities in Bahrain, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates.
These actions appear consistent with Tehran’s broader doctrine of asymmetric warfare. Rather than relying on large conventional forces, Iran employs drones and missiles designed to strike carefully selected targets capable of generating disproportionate political and psychological effects.
Early attacks focused on the radar systems and surveillance capabilities of U.S. military installations in the region. However, the scope of targeting quickly expanded to include infrastructure critical to civilian life.
Such strikes serve a strategic purpose. By demonstrating the ability to disrupt vital services in neighboring states, Iran signals that countries hosting or supporting U.S. operations cannot remain insulated from the consequences of war.
The message is clear: regional allies of Washington may share the costs of escalation.
For Gulf states, this development represents a fundamental shift. The distinction between military and civilian targets—already fragile in modern warfare—is increasingly collapsing in the Gulf theater.
Defensive Posture and Strategic Restraint
Despite these pressures, Gulf states have so far avoided direct military retaliation against Iran.
Instead, their response has focused on defensive measures. During the first week of the conflict, Gulf air defense systems reportedly intercepted hundreds of Iranian missiles and more than a thousand unmanned aerial vehicles. The United Arab Emirates and Kuwait accounted for many of the confirmed interceptions.
While missile attacks have somewhat declined, drone strikes continue to pose a persistent threat.
For the moment, the Gulf states maintain what is effectively a defensive posture designed to protect national infrastructure without widening the conflict.
This restraint reflects a deliberate strategic calculation.
Saudi Arabia’s Calculated Caution
Saudi Arabia occupies the most delicate position in this evolving crisis.
As the region’s largest economy and a central actor in global energy markets, the kingdom would be both a primary target and a pivotal participant in any broader regional war. Several missiles reportedly aimed at Saudi oil facilities have already been intercepted, and Riyadh has issued warnings to Tehran.
Nevertheless, the Saudi leadership has resisted calls for direct involvement.
Officials have framed this restraint as a sign of strategic discipline rather than weakness. From Riyadh’s perspective, entering the war risks triggering a cycle of escalation that could quickly become uncontrollable.
Yet the sustainability of this approach remains uncertain. A major attack causing significant civilian casualties—or the destruction of essential infrastructure such as water systems, telecommunications networks, or oil facilities—could force Gulf states to reconsider their position.
The Risks of Escalation
The reluctance of Gulf states to retaliate stems partly from the potential consequences of escalation.
Direct military engagement could invite further Iranian strikes and potentially draw additional actors into the conflict, particularly the Houthis in Yemen. Such dynamics could transform the war into a prolonged regional confrontation.
For Gulf monarchies whose prosperity depends on stability, this is an unattractive prospect. Their economies are built not only on hydrocarbon exports but increasingly on financial services, tourism, logistics, and international investment. The drive led by MBS to preserve and value hydrocarbon wealth whilst diversifying capital investments for the benefit of future generations.
Countries such as the United Arab Emirates have spent decades cultivating reputations as secure global hubs, and as safe havens for foreign capital and ex-patriot residents. A sustained conflict with Iran could undermine these achievements and damage investor confidence.
Uncertainty About U.S. Security Guarantees
Another factor shaping Gulf caution is growing uncertainty about the durability of U.S. security commitments.
For decades, the American military presence formed the cornerstone of Gulf defense. Advanced missile-defense systems, intelligence cooperation, and naval deployments were intended to deter regional threats.
Yet recent developments have raised questions about the extent to which Washington would remain committed if the conflict deepened or became politically costly.
At the same time, Iran has demonstrated the capacity to challenge sophisticated—and extremely expensive—U.S. defense systems. Damage to radar components associated with advanced missile-defense networks highlights the difficulties of defending against large-scale missile and drone attacks.
This raises a strategic dilemma for Gulf leaders: how much risk should they assume on behalf of an ally whose long-term commitment may appear uncertain?
A Diplomatic Opening Under Threat
The war also threatens to reverse recent diplomatic progress between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
After decades of hostility, the two countries had begun cautiously rebuilding relations. Riyadh invested considerable diplomatic effort in reducing regional tensions in order to concentrate on domestic economic transformation.
That fragile rapprochement now faces severe strain.
Saudi Arabia’s reluctance to escalate may therefore reflect not only strategic caution but also a desire to preserve some channels of communication with Tehran.
Reconfiguring Strategic Partnerships
The conflict may also reshape the Gulf’s external partnerships.
Several major Asian powers with extensive economic ties to the region—including India and China—were slow to condemn Iranian attacks. In Gulf capitals, this hesitation has been interpreted as a lack of political solidarity.
By contrast, several European states—particularly France, Italy, and the United Kingdom—have shown greater readiness to support Gulf security efforts, including through military deployments.
Over time, these differing responses could influence how Gulf states reassess their diplomatic and security partnerships.
Toward a New Regional Balance
For now, the Gulf monarchies remain caught between vulnerability and restraint. They seek to avoid deeper involvement in a conflict that threatens both regional stability and their long-term development strategies.
Yet their room for maneuver is narrowing.
The erosion of wartime norms, the targeting of civilian infrastructure, and uncertainty about external security guarantees are steadily altering the strategic environment.
If these trends continue, the Gulf states may soon face a choice they have long tried to avoid: whether to remain on the defensive—or become direct participants in a widening regional war.
This could be precipitated if the US and Israel decide to fight a prolonged war with an aim of regime change or bringing about an end to Iran nuclear activities, shifting the focus of the campaign from the north of Iran to the Persian gulf.
If Kharg Island is developing as an economic and strategic choking point for Iran within the Persian Gulf, its increases the risk of hostilities spilling over to the Gulf states
