After Iran’s Salvo Hits Their Skylines, Will Gulf States Go to War? | conflict

Doha, Qatar- When Iranian missiles hit Doha, Dubai and Manama over the weekend, they shattered more than glass and concrete — they were a blow to the Gulf states’ image as carefully cultivated oases of stability, isolated from the crises and conflicts in the rest of the Middle East.

Now, countries in the region face what analysts describe as an impossible choice: retreat and risk fighting Israel, or stand idle while their cities burn.

“For people and political leaders here, seeing the Manama, Doha and Dubai bombs is as strange and unimaginable for Americans as seeing the Charlotte, Seattle or Miami bombings,” Monica Marks, a professor of Middle East politics at New York University Abu Dhabi, told Al Jazeera.

The attacks came as Iran retaliated for a massive US-Israeli attack that began on Saturday. The operation killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior military leaders and hit military and government sites across Iran. A school was also hit and at least 148 people were killed in that strike.

Tehran retaliated with missiles and drones targeting Israeli and US military assets across the Gulf, killing at least three people in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where at least 58 were injured by Sunday evening. Either the missiles – or debris after intercepting them – hit landmark buildings and Dubai’s airport, high-rise buildings in Manama and Kuwait’s airport, with smoke billowing from some neighborhoods in Doha. Saudi Arabia said Iran had also hit Riyadh and its eastern region. Qatar suffered 16 injuries on its soil, five in Oman, 32 in Kuwait and four in Bahrain.

A war they tried to stop

Gulf countries do not want this confrontation. In the weeks before the attack, Oman had mediated indirect talks between Washington and Tehran, with Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi declaring that peace was “within reach” after Iran agreed to never stockpile enriched uranium and dramatically dilute its existing stockpile of enriched uranium.

Still, hours later, the US and Israel fired missiles.

“The GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) states have seen this war slowly coming for weeks, if not months, and have made a huge effort to stop it,” Marks said.

He knew that a cornered Iranian regime would “choose fratricide before suicide,” taking its Gulf neighbors hostage rather than admit defeat.

Rob Geist Pinfold, a lecturer at King’s College London, agreed that the Gulf states had tried hard to prevent military action.

“The GCC states did not want this war. They tried to lobby against it,” he told Al Jazeera. Against that backdrop, the prospect of them joining the war — and working with the Israelis — is a big challenge to their legitimacy, he said.

Yet remaining inactive has its own risks. Pinfold described the predicament of the Gulf states as a “conundrum”: doing nothing while Iran repeatedly strikes will damage their position as they enter the war.

“At the end of the day, these governments respond to popular opinion,” he said. “They want to protect their people, protect their territory and their sovereignty.”

Both analysts say the Gulf states may eventually choose to act — but on their own terms.

Pinfold argued that they would be more likely to launch strikes themselves through a joint GCC effort such as the Peninsula Shield Force (PSF) rather than simply opening their airspace to US and Israeli operations.

The PSF is a unified army formed by the GCC in 1984, which evolved into a unified military command in 2013.

“They don’t want to be seen as working for Israel or working with Israel,” he said. “They don’t just follow, they want to be seen as important.”

Pinfold added that it would allow the Gulf states to “sit in the driving seat” and demonstrate agency after weeks of being sidelined.

“It was the US and Israel that started this war. It was Iran that escalated it. So now the Gulf states are in a position where they can show that they’re not just passive — they’re not just bombed people.”

Nightmare scenarios

The immediate fear for Gulf leaders centers on their most vulnerable infrastructure. Marx identified what he called a “real nightmare scenario”: strikes on power grids, water desalination plants and energy infrastructure.

“Without air conditioning and water desalination, the scorching hot and bone-dry Gulf countries are essentially uninhabitable,” he said.

“Without energy infrastructure, they are unprofitable. The Gulf states will take whatever actions they think threaten those interests.”

Pinfold, however, argued that the deeper threat was not physical but reputational.

The lasting damage, he warned, would be to the soft power of the Gulf states – their brand of stability, a prospective haven for investment and tourism in a turbulent region.

“These strikes damage that reputation,” he said.

A New Era of State-to-State War?

Both analysts noted that the current crisis marks a dramatic shift in regional security dynamics. For years, Gulf states focused their concerns on non-state actors such as the Houthis in Yemen or Hezbollah in Lebanon.

That calculation has now changed.

“What we’re seeing is a new paradigm in the Middle East, or a return to the very old paradigm of state-on-state warfare,” Pinfold said.

“We’re not seeing more gray zone warfare in terms of disinformation, proxy warfare and whatnot. We’re actually seeing a new level of escalation.”

Marx noted that even before the war began, Gulf states, including the UAE, had come to view Israel as a greater threat to regional stability than Iran, especially after Israel’s strike on Hamas leaders in Qatar last September.

“That assessment is very different today,” he said.

Iran’s opening salvo, a “wide and startling scattershot” — and worse.

For now, the Gulf states are rapidly reconsidering. Their next moves will depend on whether Iran offers what Marx calls a “more rational ladder” — one that allows them to stay abreast of where they want to be.

But with their glittering skylines now pockmarked by missile fire, that option is quickly out of reach.