Iran's Survival Risks Regional Instability, Gulf Nations Bear the Brunt

The ongoing conflict in the Persian Gulf region presents a significant threat to regional stability, with Iran potentially leveraging its survival to rearm, placing its Arab neighbors at direct risk. This analysis, published by The National Interest and authored by Dr. Khalid Al-Jaber, Executive Director of the Middle East Council for Global Affairs, highlights how the current military confrontations, involving the United States and Israel against Iran, have far-reaching consequences beyond the immediate combatants.

The report identifies Iran's neighboring countries, including the Gulf states, Iraq, and Jordan, as the primary victims of the conflict, despite their non-participation in direct fighting. Escalating attacks on energy infrastructure, disruptions to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, and a decline in economic confidence and investment flows have left the Persian Gulf region bearing the greatest burden of a conflict whose aims and outcomes extend beyond its geographical borders. This situation raises complex strategic questions, as Gulf nations find themselves enduring the repercussions of a war they did not initiate and whose resolution is beyond their control, even after exerting diplomatic efforts to prevent it.

The analysis posits that Iran's targeting of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) economies signifies a deliberate strategy to exert pressure. While GCC states have historically been indirect participants or financiers in regional conflicts over four decades, they have rarely been direct targets. This dynamic has shifted dramatically, with coordinated drone and missile attacks targeting oil and gas facilities, power and desalination plants, airports, and logistics hubs across all six GCC nations during a recent period of heightened tensions. The report notes that these attacks, even without GCC involvement in military operations, represent a calculated move to escalate the cost of confrontation for the United States to unsustainable levels.

This constitutes a systematic economic assault, with Iran precisely targeting vital infrastructure such as Saudi Aramco, ADNOC, and QatarEnergy, alongside oil fields in Kuwait and Bahrain. Concurrently, the disruption of maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz aims to destabilize global energy markets and inflate oil prices. The repercussions are already evident, with Iraq declaring force majeure on its oil exports due to navigation disruptions. The report warns that closing the Strait could inflict severe damage on the economies of the United States and its allies, as well as energy-importing nations in Europe and Asia. However, the direct victimization of Gulf states does not alter Tehran's calculations.

A more profound impact lies in the structural damage to the Gulf economies, which have been striving for years to diversify income sources and reduce oil dependency through ambitious projects like Saudi Vision 2030 and NEOM, the UAE's shift towards a digital economy, and Qatar's economic expansion efforts. The continuation of the war threatens the region's reputation as a secure investment destination, potentially leaving long-term consequences that are difficult to rectify. Historically, the report draws parallels to 1991, where the defeat of Saddam Hussein's regime did not lead to its swift collapse, allowing it to persist as a regional threat for another twelve years. The subsequent 2003 invasion, intended to eliminate this threat, inadvertently created a strategic vacuum that Iran exploited to enhance its regional influence, contributing to the current security challenges.

The analysis suggests that simply weakening a regime's military capabilities does not eliminate its capacity to threaten neighbors. Ideological regimes adapt through unconventional means such as proxies, drones, and cyberattacks, which are less costly and more flexible. Iran's complex structure, supported by the Revolutionary Guard's transnational religious ideology and a vast network of regional allies including Hezbollah, the Houthis, and various Iraqi militias, coupled with its advanced missile and drone capabilities, poses a persistent threat. Two months of aerial strikes by the U.S. and Israel have not decisively diminished Iran's influence, raising doubts about the efficacy of military solutions alone. However, escalating the conflict to the point of regime change could lead to widespread regional chaos, echoing Henry Kissinger's view that the goal of wars should be sustainable peace, not merely defeating adversaries.

The report concludes that the true challenge for the Gulf states lies not in the timing of the war's end, but in the nature of the post-victory phase. Historical precedents indicate that the cessation of military operations can usher in a more complex era of indirect conflict. The United States will likely frame the narrative of victory, potentially emphasizing the dismantling of Iran's nuclear program and the weakening of the Revolutionary Guard, before reducing its military engagement. This scenario could leave Gulf nations directly confronting the conflict's lingering effects. Israel might achieve tactical gains, and the U.S. could claim domestic political success, but the region would remain vulnerable to long-term threats, including indirect attacks on infrastructure, similar to past incidents in Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The report warns that misinterpreting historical lessons could perpetuate the cycle of paying the price for a war that is declared politically over but not factually resolved.