Dr. Yasin Azzam
Introduction
The Middle East region is undergoing a transformative phase that could determine the political, economic, and security future of this sensitive area for an extended period. The transformation in the nature of confrontations between Iran and Israel from proxy warfare and propaganda to direct military confrontation raises several critical questions regarding the future of security and stability in the region. Israel’s strike on Iran in July 2025, resulting in the killing of several high-ranking military officials and nuclear scientists, along with the destruction of this country’s nuclear facilities, marked a fundamental shift in the manner of managing regional issues. This strike not only had direct implications for relations between these two countries, but also placed all regional countries, particularly the Gulf Cooperation Council states, before a new situation fraught with challenges. The Gulf countries, which have been engaged in implementing development and economic transformation projects for several years and attempting to transform the region into a global hub for commerce and investment, now find themselves confronting a serious threat that could jeopardize those efforts. The threat of war expansion, the possibility of the Strait of Hormuz closure, environmental disruption due to attacks on nuclear facilities, and the presence of American military bases on the territory of these countries have all compelled these states to completely reassess their policies and positions.
This study endeavors to shed light on the stance of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries regarding the war between Iran and Israel, and to analyze the threats and challenges these countries face, as well as the diplomatic methods and approaches these states employ to protect their interests and safeguard regional security and stability during such a sensitive phase.
Israel’s Strike on Iran
On July 13, 2025, Israel launched a large-scale strike against Iran, targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities extensively. Simultaneously, several military leaders were killed in this strike, including Hussein Salami, Commander-in-Chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps; the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces, General Mohammad Bagheri; the Commander of Khatam al-Anbiya, General Gholam Ali Rashid; along with several renowned nuclear scientists such as Ahmad Reza Zolfaghari, Mehdi Tehranchi, and Fereydoun Abbasi. Israel’s strike on Iran occurred when the United States and Iran were scheduled to hold an important meeting two days later regarding Iran’s nuclear program. Following the execution of the strike, an Israeli military spokesperson emphasized in a statement that their action marked the beginning of Israel’s strikes against Tehran to prevent that country from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Iranian news sources reported that Israel’s current strike on Tehran was unexpected, as they were scheduled to meet with the US President’s representative in Muscat, the capital of Oman, in two days. However, unexpectedly, in the early morning of Saturday, Israel launched a large-scale attack on Tehran, targeting several military figures, nuclear scientists, and uranium enrichment facilities. In reality, Israel’s current strike shocked the Iranians; they were not under the impression that Israel could so easily target that country’s military leaders.
Regarding the reasons for conducting this strike, the Israeli military confirmed that their attacks were preemptive to prevent Tehran from advancing its nuclear program. A high-ranking Israeli military official confirmed that his country had received intelligence that Iran was engaged in advancing its nuclear program and was close to producing nuclear weapons, which, from his country’s perspective, constituted crossing a red line. These strikes were intended to prevent the production of nuclear weapons by Tehran authorities.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emphasized that Iran continues to antagonize his country and has become a source of serious threat; therefore, in the event of acquiring nuclear weapons, his entire country would be placed under Iranian threat.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, in a report one day before Israel’s strike, announced that Tehran does not cooperate with their commission and is not committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This occurred while Tehran completely denied the Agency’s report and announced that the report was far from reality and cast doubt on the International Atomic Energy Agency’s credibility.
Immediately following the execution of the strike, the United States confirmed that they did not participate in Israel’s strike on Iran. US President Donald Trump, despite his country’s non-participation in those strikes, nevertheless reiterated his support for Israel and described the strike as successful. The US President emphasized his country’s assistance to Israel and announced that they are assisting Israel in ways never done before. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, he stated that they were aware of Israel’s strike but did not participate themselves. In contrast, the Iranians confirmed that the United States and Israel are close allies and that Israel cannot conduct such a strike without America. They simultaneously emphasized that those two countries would pay the price for this military action very soon in the coming days.
Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ali Khamenei emphasized that a dark future awaits Israel; soon it will receive a response to that aggression, while simultaneously threatening those countries that are Israel’s allies, particularly the United States. Following Iran’s threats, in the United States, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that his country did not participate in the strike but was informed by Israel that they were conducting these strikes to protect themselves. The US Secretary of State emphasized that Iran must refrain from targeting his country’s interests and clearly conveyed this message to the Iranians: they will not accept Iran attacking American interests in the region.
Iran’s Response to Israel’s Strike
Following Israel’s strike on Iran, the confrontation between these two countries entered a new phase, because previously they fought proxy wars, but now there was no longer an opportunity for Iran to attack Israel through its proxies. In response to Israel’s strike, Iran decided to conduct “True Promise 3” operation against Israel. Iran’s counterattack on Israel began by directing several ballistic missiles and drones toward Israeli cities and towns. Although a large portion of Iran’s missile strike was intercepted by the Israeli aerial defense force and the “Iron Dome,” several missiles fell on Israeli cities and towns, causing material and human casualties. Israel was not under the impression that Tehran could reach its country’s territory with its missiles and achieve its objective; therefore, it quickly responded to Iran and conducted several strikes through its aircraft on important and strategic atomic sites in Tehran.
The continuation of Israeli and Iranian strikes on each other brought international countries to voice concerns and called for an immediate end to their attacks. In this regard, the French government presented an initiative for dialogue between Israel and Iran with the aim of ending their mutual strikes. Simultaneously, the foreign ministers of Germany, France, and Britain, along with European Union countries, requested a meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to meet with him in Geneva. Regarding the European Union countries’ request, Araghchi confirmed that his country still considers diplomatic solutions based on its background for resolving issues but must be prepared to respond to Israel’s strike on his country.
In Moscow, Russian President Vladimir Putin emphasized that the war between Israel and Iran should end as soon as possible. He simultaneously emphasized that Tehran had not requested military assistance from his country; Russia’s current military assistance has no connection whatsoever to the war. Despite the softness of the Russian President’s statements regarding the war, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov gave a stern warning to the United States regarding the possibility of participation in the war. The Deputy Foreign Minister clearly indicated that American participation would lead to a nuclear catastrophe in the region; therefore, they request that America refrain from such a decision.
Despite the threats from Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister, the United States conducted a major strike on several atomic bases. The US President confirmed his country’s strike on the atomic bases of Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan in a press interview. Donald Trump described his country’s fighter jets’ strike on those Iranian atomic bases as successful and announced that as he speaks, their aircraft have successfully completed their operation and left Iranian airspace. Regarding the manner of conducting the strike, the US President emphasized that no force in the world can conduct this military operation in that manner. After his country’s strike concluded, he called for an end to the war between Iran and Israel; therefore, he requested both countries to halt their mutual attacks. The US President threatened Iran that in the event of not ending missile strikes on Israel, the United States would conduct another strike on that country.
The Gulf Cooperation Council Countries’ Stance
Several days after Israel’s strike on Iran, the Gulf Cooperation Council held a meeting at the foreign ministers’ level of the Council’s members, with the attendance of the Council’s Secretary-General Jasim al-Budaiwi, through a video conference chaired by Kuwait’s Foreign Minister, who was presiding over the Council at that time. Al-Budaiwi, in a speech before the attendees of the video conference meeting, indicated that the region is experiencing an unprecedented sensitive situation due to Israel’s strike on Iran and the Iranian response to those strikes; therefore, he called for very careful consideration of the regional situation and taking into account all future scenarios. The Council’s Secretary emphasized that Israel’s strikes have become a cause for derailing diplomatic efforts to end the pending issue between Iran and the United States; therefore, he requested member states to condemn Israel’s strikes on Iran. Simultaneously, he called on attendees to fully prepare themselves for the new situation, because the situation requires greater readiness so that the current opportunity does not slip away, enabling them to confront the expected future challenges.
Saudi Arabia’s Stance
Saudi Arabian authorities, immediately following Israel’s strikes on Iran on Saturday, condemned the strike and described it as aggression against a sovereign country, simultaneously emphasizing that this strike constitutes a clear violation of international law. The Saudi Foreign Ministry’s statement completely accused Israel of violating international law and called on the international community and the United Nations Security Council to “assume their responsibilities and stop these hostile strikes.”
Kuwait
The State of Kuwait, as one of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, condemned Israel’s strikes on Iran. In a statement, very strongly voiced opposition to Israel’s strike on Iranian territory and announced that this strike constitutes a violation of all applicable international conventions, simultaneously constituting aggression against the territory of a sovereign country. Moreover, the security and stability of the region have been placed under threat and instability due to the strike.
Qatar
Similar to the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, Qatar also described Israel’s strike as a violation of international law, simultaneously confirming that such strikes are contrary to all international laws issued by the United Nations. The State of Qatar, in its statement, highlighted the threat that the region would experience instability, the reason being Israel’s strike on Iranian territory; therefore, it called for immediate action to end this Israeli violation against Iran. It simultaneously emphasized that the only path before them is diplomatic solutions to end regional issues.
Qatari Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman, in an interview, indicated that all world countries are engaged in resolving pending issues through diplomacy, but Israel, with this warmongering position, is taking the region’s peace opportunity toward elimination; therefore, it is necessary for the international community, before the peace opportunity is lost, to direct all its efforts toward this purpose and prevent Israel from being able to violate international law in this manner.
Sultanate of Oman
The Sultanate of Oman, through its Foreign Minister, condemned Israel’s strike. Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi announced that Israel’s strike was unilateral and contrary to all applicable international laws; no excuse can allow Israel to violate international law and conduct strikes in this manner. He simultaneously emphasized that Israel’s threats have become a source of instability and anxiety throughout the Middle East; he reiterated his country’s position in condemning Israel’s strike on Iran. Al-Busaidi called on the international community to support diplomacy unanimously so that stability returns to the region.
United Arab Emirates
The UAE Foreign Ministry very strongly condemned Israel’s strike on Iranian territory. The UAE State expressed its sympathy toward Iran and announced that they consider these strikes as Israel’s hostile effort against Iran, simultaneously accusing Israel of disrupting Middle East stability. This occurred while in the Foreign Ministry’s statement they requested Iran to exercise restraint so that the issue does not become larger and escalate into a prolonged war. The Foreign Ministry called for resolving the issue by adopting the diplomatic path, because it is the best option and any effort to deepen disagreements harms all parties.
State of Bahrain
Bahrain, as one of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, also opposed the strike on Iran. Manama’s Foreign Ministry described Israel’s strike as an effort to disrupt regional security, simultaneously highlighting its country’s concern regarding the strike’s consequences in disrupting regional peace and security; therefore, it called on all parties to exercise restraint so that anxiety and threat do not manifest to the region’s inhabitants. Bahrain’s Foreign Ministry called on the United States and Iran to meet at the negotiation table as soon as possible to resolve their issues through dialogue. It simultaneously emphasized that diplomatic resolution of issues is the key to achieving regional security and stability and serves the interests of all the region’s people.
Economic Impacts on Gulf Countries
S&P Global company, in a report regarding the economic damages of continued Iran-Israel war, indicated that there is a major threat to regional countries’ economies due to the possibility of clashes occurring in main maritime transportation routes; this might disrupt oil transportation to global markets in Gulf waters, in addition to tourism reduction and complete sector disruption. Moreover, the threats of war expansion create the possibility of capital owners abandoning the region.
Another sensitive issue for Gulf countries is the possibility of Israel’s strike on the Bushehr nuclear plant, which is close to Gulf waters. Any strike on that nuclear base would affect Gulf water pollution, which would directly impact all those countries overlooking Gulf waters. Therefore, the Gulf Cooperation Council countries have mobilized their efforts through various means and several channels to end the war so they can keep their countries away from those threats.
Another threat to Gulf countries is the closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran, because Iranian authorities continuously threaten this among their options if strikes continue, that is, closing that strait to commercial ships. In reality, closing the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 20% of global energy transportation passes, would become a lethal weapon for Gulf countries. Although fuel prices would rise significantly, those countries cannot easily deliver their products to global markets, which would constitute a major loss for them. Moreover, closing the Strait of Hormuz would cause a reduction in those necessities coming from Chinese markets to these countries, thereby creating inflation and excessive price increases for goods.
Iran’s continuous threats, which speak of targeting American and Israeli interests in the region, have once again become a source of anxiety for Gulf countries, because most of those countries have American military bases, which increases the possibility of the fire’s spark reaching those countries. The threat of Iran’s strike on American military bases in those Gulf countries becomes a reason for reduced travel and tourism in those countries, in addition to halting airline flights due to the threat of long-range missiles that Iran directs toward Israel. The continuation of war and complications, due to Gulf countries being Iran’s neighbors, becomes a source of economic security loss for Gulf countries.
Despite the threats Gulf countries have regarding the closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran, closing that strait is not so easy for Iran; it would have significant political and economic consequences for Iran, America, and even those other countries that consider themselves allies and friends of Iran. Closing the strait means declaring war against the United States and European countries, in addition to China and India’s dissatisfaction, because those two states also obtain a large portion of their energy needs through that strait, in addition to exporting their products and delivering them to global markets through using the Strait of Hormuz. Those states have assisted Iran in the past and are considered friends of Iran. In the event of closing the strait, major damage would occur to their economic interests; this might push them to distance themselves from Iran and become friends and allies of Israel; therefore, closing the strait also works to Iran’s detriment.
Possibility of New Israeli Strike and Gulf Cooperation Council Countries’ Stance
After America’s strike on Iran’s most important uranium enrichment base called Fordow, Iran promised to avenge this strike and attack American interests in the region. Based on those threats, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard decided to attack the American “Al-Udeid” military base in Qatar. Following Iran’s strike, Qatar and Gulf countries very strongly condemned Iran’s strike. Although Iran’s strike did not cause significant damage, the State of Qatar described Iran’s strike as hostile and considered it a violation of its country’s territorial sovereignty.
Although the war between Iran and Israel has temporarily ended, the possibility of the war’s resurgence exists due to Israel emphasizing that in the event of Iran resorting to uranium enrichment again and reactivating nuclear bases, they will strike them again. In contrast, Iran assures that they will rebuild those bases again and will not stop uranium enrichment.
The Gulf Cooperation Council countries believe that the war’s fire spark indirectly reaches them as well; therefore, they are not in favor of the war between Iran and Israel resuming. Although some analysts believe that Iran’s weakening and preventing Iranian oil exports to world markets are in Gulf countries’ interests, because the energy market would need those countries’ products more, in addition to fuel price increases due to high demand, it still cannot be fully assured that those countries can fulfill global energy market needs, because Iran threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz, which means reduced oil exports from Gulf countries, except for Saudi Arabia, which can use an alternative route and export its oil through the Red Sea, but this also requires significant costs if it wants to export to Asian markets. Another threat to Gulf countries is the region’s situation disruption due to the possibility of the Islamic regime’s collapse in Iran, because that country has a population close to ninety million people, which becomes a source of issues for those countries neighboring Iran.
Another positive aspect of Israel’s strike on Iran is that country’s weakening, which means the weakening of Iran’s proxy forces in the region, which have been continuously threatening those countries, such as Yemen’s Houthis, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy forces in Iraq, and other parts of regional countries. Israel’s strike prevents Iran from reaching those forces and being unable to arm them, thereby weakening Iran’s external influence. This might give Gulf countries more opportunity to protect their countries’ security. However, war brings complications in its wake. The United States has several military bases in Gulf countries; Iran also continuously threatens that in the event of a new strike on its country, it will target all American and Israeli interests. Any strike on those countries would cause instability, which would have major impacts on the economic sector and some of those companies and merchants working in those countries, causing them to reconsider and transfer their capital to a stable area. This would have direct impacts on Gulf countries’ economic development, which is the backbone of those countries’ progress. Therefore, Gulf countries have mobilized all their diplomatic channels to prevent the war between those two countries from resuming.
Conclusion
The Gulf states have an interest in the Islamic Republic of Iran being weakened, but they do not want a security vacuum to be created in the Middle East region, because any security vacuum in Gulf waters would become a serious problem for Gulf countries’ interests in the future. Moreover, they do not want the region to face a prolonged war.
Gulf countries do not support Iran, but they fear Israel’s unilateral success, which would rearrange the region’s cards in a manner that would weaken their role. They also do not openly oppose Israel, but they prefer their relationship with it to be conducted behind the scenes so they can completely understand the situation.
The choice of neutrality and distancing from the war between Iran and Israel by Gulf countries is a strategic plan of those countries to avoid becoming part of the crises and to be able to play a role as mediators and parties managing the crises.
Although Gulf countries have clearly condemned Israel’s strikes on Iran and described them as violations of international law, at the same time they have expressed their anxiety regarding the possibility of confrontation expansion and dragging the region into a comprehensive war.
Gulf countries are in a complex situation, because on one hand they want to have good relations with the United States and Israel, and on the other hand, they cannot remain silent regarding Israel’s strikes on an Islamic country and their neighbor. Moreover, the threat of economic consequences such as Strait of Hormuz closure, tourism reduction, and investment weakening has compelled these countries to mobilize all diplomatic channels to end the war.
- Originally published in Publishing Section by the Center for Future Studies and translated by Nawroz Mohammed for Kfuture.Media.
