Between Washington’s Investments and Tel Aviv’s Missiles: The Gulf in a Landscape of Strategic Volatility

In May 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump conducted an official visit to the Gulf, during which several large-scale economic and investment agreements were announced, exceeding trillions of dollars. Within weeks, a direct military confrontation erupted between Israel and Iran, producing rapid escalation and raising fundamental questions about the nature of the relationship between the United States and the Gulf states, and the extent of Washington’s commitment to the stability of its regional allies. The Gulf remains one of the world’s most sensitive zones in terms of both security and energy.
It is politically and strategically inconsistent to sign such significant investment deals while allowing an unchecked military escalation to unfold in the same region within a single month. This contradiction demands a serious assessment of the risks to these investments and to regional stability as a whole.
American interests in the Gulf are directly linked to regional security. The funds behind these investment agreements are derived from Gulf oil exports, which face immediate threats in the event of conflict expansion. These threats include potential attacks on energy infrastructure, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and strikes on U.S. military bases by Iran or its regional allies in Iraq and Yemen.
Historically, Gulf capitals have tied their relations with Washington to firm and explicit security guarantees. Today, the U.S. position, which strongly supports Israel in its war with Iran while signaling readiness to engage militarily, casts doubt on Washington’s willingness to defend Gulf security. There is growing concern that the region is being used as a theater to reshape balances of power through indirect means.

The United States Benefits Either Way

The United States has no urgent need to engage militarily as long as it can benefit without incurring direct costs. If Israel succeeds in neutralizing Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, Washington will gain from the reduced threat and from the ability to influence the region’s political trajectory. If Israel fails or faces prolonged military challenges, the United States will likely return as a diplomatic broker to revive nuclear negotiations with Tehran. Meanwhile, American forces remain fully prepared for direct involvement if needed.
 
This hesitation reflects a dual-track strategy. Washington is positioning itself as the final arbiter of regional outcomes, while avoiding direct involvement in military confrontations. Gulf states, by contrast, are placed at risk without the means to shape the course or outcomes of the crisis.
On the ground, Iran maintains a consistent level of response through daily missile attacks on Israeli territory. This sustained pressure diminishes Washington’s enthusiasm for direct intervention and for risking further escalation.
However, a final strike targeting Iran’s fortified Fordow nuclear facility could prompt President Trump to act, presenting it as a conclusive military achievement before returning to negotiations, possibly in Muscat.
 
Gulf Division and Uneven Positions

Initial joint Gulf condemnations of the Israeli strike on Iranian territory quickly gave way to divergent national responses. The United Arab Emirates and Bahrain adopted carefully worded statements aligned with their growing strategic ties to Israel. Qatar and Oman expressed deeper concern, given their diplomatic relations with Tehran and the increasing threats directed at them due to their stance on the Gaza conflict. Saudi Arabia, for its part, issued a firm condemnation of the Israeli offensive.
This fragmentation weakens the Gulf’s collective position and prevents the emergence of a unified response capable of diplomatic pressure or coordinated security measures. The absence of a shared defense framework, combined with the uneven distribution of U.S. military presence, leaves each Gulf state exposed to different levels of risk depending on geography and bilateral alliances.
 
Israel’s Shift from Deterrence to Domination
Israel views the current conflict as an

opportunity to achieve objectives that extend beyond neutralizing Iran’s nuclear threat. Its military campaign has included strikes on nuclear facilities, military installations, civilian infrastructure, media outlets, and senior military leaders. The scope of these attacks points to a strategy aimed at weakening the regime and preparing the ground for internal collapse.
Israel is working to establish itself not only as a dominant regional force but as a guarantor of regional security. Through recent security and technology agreements with Gulf states, it has expanded its influence beyond traditional adversaries to redefine relationships with its allies as well.
A successful Israeli campaign against Iran may not serve Gulf security. Instead, it could shift the regional balance in a way that increases Gulf vulnerability. The historical record in Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt shows that Israel does not distinguish between adversaries and allies when seeking to secure its own interests. Under these dynamics, all Gulf states become potential targets of Israeli strategic pressure.
 
Toward a Strategic Gulf Repositioning

Gulf states now face a critical test. The regional conflict between Israel and Iran is expanding, while the United States appears to operate on strategic calculations that no longer prioritize Gulf security or stability.
The Gulf response cannot remain confined to statements of condemnation. It must evolve into a coherent and unified security strategy. This involves reassessing relations with both the United States and Israel. Long-standing alliances should be maintained, but under clearer conditions and with defined boundaries to protect sovereignty and regional balance.
The current pace of geopolitical shifts requires immediate recalibration. Silence, often presented as neutrality in Gulf media, is proving ineffective. Continuing to rely on traditional allies without reassessing their changing roles presents unacceptable risks.
The Gulf must reposition itself within the regional security framework as an active partner with decision-making power, not a passive actor. This is not a political preference—it is a strategic necessity to prevent the region from becoming engulfed in future conflicts.