.png)
GULF Arab governments are urging Washington not to end its war with Iran before significantly weakening Tehran’s military capability, according to regional sources, amid growing concern that Iran could otherwise retain the power to threaten the region’s critical oil routes.
While Gulf leaders insist, they did not ask the United States to launch the campaign, several sources told Reuters that many now believe the conflict must go further to prevent Iran from again holding the region’s energy infrastructure and shipping lanes at risk.
At the same time, diplomats say Washington has been pressing Gulf states to join the U.S.–Israeli campaign against Iran in order to demonstrate regional backing for the war.
According to three diplomatic sources, U.S. President Donald Trump is keen to show that regional allies support the military action, both to strengthen the campaign’s international legitimacy and to bolster support at home.
“There is a wide feeling across the Gulf that Iran has crossed every red line with every Gulf country,” said Abdulaziz Sager, chairman of the Saudi-based Gulf Research Center and familiar with government thinking.
“At first we defended them and opposed the war,” Reuters cited Sager saying. “But once they began directing strikes at us, they became an enemy. There is no other way to classify them.”
Iran has already demonstrated the reach of its military capabilities by striking airports, ports, oil installations and commercial hubs across the six Gulf states using missiles and drones.
It has also disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow maritime corridor through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil supply passes.
The attacks have reinforced fears among Gulf governments that leaving Iran with a significant arsenal or the capacity to manufacture advanced weapons would allow Tehran to threaten the region’s energy lifeline whenever tensions escalate.
As the conflict entered its third week, with U.S. and Israeli air strikes intensifying and Iran launching retaliatory attacks against American bases and civilian targets across the Gulf, one regional source said the prevailing view among Gulf leaders was clear: that Washington should comprehensively degrade Iran’s military power.
The alternative, the source said, would be a future defined by constant insecurity. Unless Iran was severely weakened, the source warned, Tehran could continue to hold the region “to ransom”.
Predominantly Shi’ite Iran has long viewed its Sunni Arab Gulf neighbours — many of them close allies of the United States and hosts to American military bases — with suspicion, although its relations with Qatar and Oman have historically been less confrontational.
Over the years Iran and its regional allies have been accused of attacks on Gulf energy infrastructure, including the 2019 strike on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq and Khurais oil facilities, which temporarily cut the kingdom’s oil output in half and rattled global markets. Iran denied responsibility for that attack.
For Gulf leaders, however, the damage inflicted by Iranian strikes this month extends beyond physical destruction.
The attacks have disrupted oil flows and threatened the image of stability that Gulf states have spent years cultivating in order to attract trade, investment and tourism as they attempt to diversify their economies beyond fossil fuels.
“If the Americans pull out before the task is complete, we’ll be left to confront Iran on our own,” Sager said.
Despite these concerns, Gulf governments remain wary of becoming directly involved in the war.
Responding to questions about regional fears, the White House said the United States was “crushing (Iran’s) ability to shoot these weapons or produce more”, adding that President Trump was “in close contact with our partners in the Middle East”.
Of the six Gulf Cooperation Council members — Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman and the United Arab Emirates — only the UAE commented publicly.
Abu Dhabi said it “does not seek to be drawn into conflicts or escalation” but emphasised its right to “take all necessary measures” to protect its sovereignty, security and residents.
Regional sources say unilateral military intervention by any Gulf country remains unlikely, as acting alone could expose individual states to Iranian retaliation. Collective action would be the only viable option, they say, yet consensus among Gulf states has so far proved elusive.
The GCC has held just one video meeting since the war began, and no broader Arab summit has been convened to discuss coordinated action.
U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said last week that Gulf partners were “stepping up even more” and were willing to “go on the offense”, while already working with Washington on integrated air defence systems. He did not elaborate on what additional steps they might take.
A senior Emirati official said the UAE had chosen restraint after Iran claimed that the U.S. military had used Emirati territory to launch strikes against Kharg Island, home to Iran’s principal oil export terminal.
Sager said Saudi Arabia could nevertheless be forced to intervene if Iran crossed certain red lines, particularly by targeting major oil facilities, desalination plants or causing large numbers of casualties.
“In that case, Saudi Arabia would have no choice but to intervene,” he said, though he added that Riyadh would likely attempt to calibrate any response carefully to avoid further escalation.
Analysts say the Gulf states are facing a strategic dilemma: balancing the immediate danger posed by Iranian attacks against the far greater risk of becoming entangled in a prolonged war led by the United States and Israel.
Fawaz Gerges of the London School of Economics said that joining the campaign would do little to enhance Washington’s overwhelming military advantage while significantly increasing the Gulf states’ vulnerability to Iranian retaliation.
“The result is calculated restraint,” he said, describing a strategy focused on defending sovereignty and signalling clear red lines without entering a conflict the Gulf countries neither initiated nor control.
Meanwhile, Iran has demonstrated its ability to influence maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, effectively deciding which ships may pass through the vital waterway.
“Now that Iran has shown it can shut down Hormuz, the Gulf faces a fundamentally different threat,” said Bernard Haykel, professor of Near Eastern studies at Princeton University. “If it’s not addressed, this danger will be long-term.”
Trump has called for an international coalition to help reopen the waterway, though initial efforts have gained limited traction.
Haykel noted that while the global economy depends heavily on Gulf energy exports, most of that oil and gas flows eastward to Asian economies.
“China helped secure maritime routes off Somalia; it may be willing to step in here too,” he said.
The war, which began on 28 February, has already taken a toll on U.S. forces in the region.
The U.S. military said the number of American troops wounded in the conflict had risen to around 200. Most injuries were minor and 180 personnel had already returned to duty, though ten cases were described as serious.
Troops have been injured in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Bahrain, Iraq and Israel, according to U.S. Central Command.
Thirteen American service members have been killed since Iran began retaliatory strikes on U.S. military bases following the start of hostilities.
Iranian attacks have also struck diplomatic missions, hotels and airports while damaging energy infrastructure across the Gulf.
Since the war began, the United States has conducted strikes against more than 7,000 targets inside Iran.
A U.S. official also said roughly a dozen MQ-9 Reaper drones had been destroyed during the conflict.
The General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle can operate for more than 27 hours at altitudes of around 50,000 feet, carrying sophisticated sensors and weapons including air-to-ground missiles.
Meanwhile, U.S. Vice President JD Vance voiced strong support for Trump’s handling of the conflict, dismissing speculation that his previously expressed scepticism about foreign wars put him at odds with the president.
“I think one big difference is...we have a smart president whereas in the past, we’ve had dumb presidents and I trust President Trump to get the job done, to do a good job for the American people, and to make sure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated,” Vance said during an Oval Office appearance alongside the president.
The remarks followed earlier comments by Trump suggesting that Vance was “philosophically a little bit different” and “maybe less enthusiastic” about attacking Iran.
Before the conflict, Vance had frequently warned against foreign interventions, writing in a 2023 Wall Street Journal opinion piece that Trump’s most successful foreign policy achievement during his first presidency had been avoiding new wars.
“My entire adult lifetime has been shaped by presidents who threw America into unwise wars and failed to win them,” Vance wrote. - March 17, 2026