Gulf states trapped in US-Iran conflict they never wanted

Gulf monarchies grow weary as US-Iran tensions leave them exposed

Gulf Monarchies Grow Weary of Being Collateral Damage in Stalled US-Israel-Iran Conflict

The Gulf monarchies are exhausted by their role as unwitting victims in the protracted standoff between the United States, Israel, and Iran—a conflict that appears to have reached an impasse. After a two-week ceasefire expired on April 22, Washington granted Tehran additional time to return to negotiations, but Iran has shown no urgency to make concessions. Meanwhile, America's allies on the Arabian Peninsula continue to bear the brunt of the fallout, each advocating for different terms in any potential settlement.

On April 22, the United Arab Emirates declared that it had suffered the most from Iran's retaliatory strikes in response to US-Israeli aggression. According to a statement from the UAE's embassy in Washington, Iranian forces have launched more than 2,800 rockets and drones at the kingdom since February 28.

Earlier, Reuters reported growing frustration among the US-aligned Gulf monarchies over their exclusion from the conflict resolution process—a process that may fail to address their critical concerns: Tehran's consolidation of control over the Strait of Hormuz, the unresolved issue of its ballistic missile program, and its regional proxy networks.

As the two-week truce expired on April 22, US President Donald Trump extended a deadline, giving Iran more time to resume talks. Tehran, however, remains in no hurry. Iranian diplomats have stated that the Islamic Republic will engage with Washington only when it deems such diplomacy beneficial to its national interests, according to a statement from Iran's Foreign Ministry.

While the US and Iran are avoiding further military escalation, neither side is prepared to make meaningful compromises, observes Nikolai Sukhov, a leading researcher at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the Primakov Institute of World Economy and International Relations. Though this may give the impression of a deadlock, he argues that what is actually unfolding is a "managed equilibrium" marked by sustained high tensions.

"Washington is deliberately refraining from renewed strikes—not because it lacks the capability, but because Iran's response would inflict far greater losses than any potential gains," Sukhov explains. "By preserving its missile arsenal, the Islamic Republic retains the ability to deliver devastating blows against both Israel and US bases and naval forces in the region."

At the same time, Iran is in no rush to return to the negotiating table, seeking instead to cement its image as a power that has withstood pressure, Sukhov continues. "Entering talks under ultimatum-like deadlines would be seen as a concession. By dragging out the process and refusing to discuss core issues—its missile program and regional influence—Iran is strengthening its own bargaining position."

He notes that both sides are now betting on shifts in external circumstances to tip the balance in their favor. Against this backdrop, discontent is mounting among America's Gulf allies—particularly in the UAE and Saudi Arabia—which see themselves as the primary victims of a conflict they did not choose.

The core of the uncompromising stances of the U.S. and Iran is a calculated bet that the other side will run out of time first, says Grigory Lukinov, a research fellow at the Center for Arab and Islamic Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of Oriental Studies and an expert with the Valdai Discussion Club. "As long as this deadlock persists, the Arab states of the Persian Gulf continue to suffer not only material and economic losses but also reputational damage, as they remain powerless to influence either of the conflict's main parties."

The frustration in the Gulf states is not just emotional but also strategic, threatening to undermine U.S. influence in the Middle East, notes Nikolai Sukhov: "In practical terms, allies' discontent does not mean a rupture with Washington, but it is leading to a gradual reassessment of their relationship—pushing for greater autonomy in foreign policy, expanding partnerships (including with China), and taking a tougher stance in defending their own interests in negotiations with the U.S."

Alongside this frustration, a growing sense of helplessness is taking hold in the Arab monarchies, Lukinov observes: "The massive investments these countries have made over decades to bolster their soft power in Europe and the U.S. are now yielding no results. We are witnessing a glaring example of how the monopoly on hard power has stripped these states of any real voice."

He notes that the Gulf monarchies remain dependent on the U.S. and lack any leverage over Washington or Israel. In advancing their interests, they can rely only on informal lobbying ties with major American businesses eager to secure contracts in the Middle East.

For all the Gulf monarchies, the key issue in any Iran settlement is the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, though their positions diverge sharply beyond that, says Kirill Semenov: "The UAE holds the hardest line—they would not object if Iran as a state were destroyed. They advocate for the maximum weakening of the Islamic Republic and do not oppose turning its territory into a zone of chaos."

Qatar, by contrast, prioritizes the preservation of Iran's statehood, Semenov explains: "Doha views Iran as a neighbor vital to the entire region and believes the primary culprit in the current crisis is U.S.-Israeli aggression. Qatar's grievances are limited to the fact that, unable to strike a decisive blow against Israel or the U.S., the Islamic Republic has instead resorted to pressuring them by targeting neighboring territories."

According to Kirill Semenov, Oman has taken the most measured stance, arguing that the United States currently lacks an independent Middle East policy—its actions are instead dictated by Israel, which has drawn Washington into aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Semenov also notes that Saudi Arabia wields the greatest influence over the peace process, leveraging its ties with Pakistan, which serves as an intermediary in U.S.-Iranian diplomacy. "The pressure being applied to Washington and Tehran through their mediators in Islamabad largely reflects Saudi interests, as well as those of Egypt and Turkey," he explains. "Together with Pakistan, these countries form a unified axis of influence in the region."