SAEDNEWS: After the recent war, Gulf Arab countries face a dilemma between dependence on U.S. security and concern over Iran’s military power. Political analyst Habib Torkashvand discusses internal divisions, military bases, and the future of diplomacy under military pressure.
According to Saednews political analyst Habib Torkashvand, Arab countries that for years tied their security to the presence of the United States are now experiencing strategic confusion following what he describes as the weakening of U.S. and Israeli military dominance in the region. He argues that growing differences among regional actors such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, combined with Iran’s firm warnings about targeting the infrastructure of hostile states, have placed these countries at a difficult decision point.
He further suggests that the United States is seeking an exit strategy from the crisis with a claim of victory, but realities on the ground have made both negotiation and military options increasingly difficult for Washington.
Referring to recent regional conflicts, Torkashvand states that several Arab Gulf countries provided logistical support to the United States and Israel. He claims that even symbolic indicators suggested direct involvement of some states in the conflict. In the post-ceasefire period, he points to continued political efforts such as anti-Iran resolutions and military cooperation involving regional actors.
He emphasizes that Gulf Cooperation Council states—except Oman—have historically relied on external powers for security due to their limited demographic and geographic capabilities compared to Iran. According to him, this dependency led them to heavily align with the United States, hosting military bases and purchasing advanced weaponry, under the assumption that such measures would guarantee security and deterrence.
However, he argues that recent events have challenged this assumption, as these countries now witness limitations in U.S. and Israeli ability to provide effective protection, even for their own assets in the region.
Torkashvand highlights growing divergences between regional powers, particularly between Saudi Arabia and the UAE, citing disagreements over conflicts in Yemen and Sudan. He suggests that these internal rivalries may influence their responses to future conflicts involving Iran, making a unified regional stance unlikely.
He also claims that recent developments have exposed a shift in regional power perceptions, with Iran emerging as a more influential military actor than in the past, reshaping how neighboring states assess risk and alliance structures.
Addressing the likelihood of renewed military engagement, he notes reports that some countries, including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, have stated they would not allow their airspace to be used for attacks against Iran, with Qatar possibly adopting a similar position. He argues that the UAE and Bahrain remain the most exposed due to stronger ties with the United States and Israel but also face significant constraints in their ability to act independently.
He adds that Iran has issued warnings that any escalation could lead to strikes on sensitive infrastructure within these countries, which he believes has contributed to their current cautious stance.
On the diplomatic front, Torkashvand expresses skepticism about the possibility of meaningful negotiations. He argues that opposing parties seek agreements that would limit Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities in exchange for declaring political victory, a condition he believes Tehran would reject.
He further states that while the United States is increasingly reluctant to engage in direct conflict due to domestic economic pressures and the perceived erosion of its global dominance, it still seeks a settlement that preserves its political image.
According to him, Iran is unlikely to compromise under pressure and would respond to any strike with proportional or stronger retaliation, making escalation risks high and diplomatic outcomes uncertain.
