Trump's Gulf Arab allies race to avoid all-out war in Iran
Fearing the repercussions of a total regime collapse in Iran, Gulf Arab states have intensified their outreach to the Trump administration and Tehran over the past week.
The United Arab Emirates, a US ally that has long been opposed to an unsupervised Iran nuclear program, has been in contact with officials in Tehran and Washington to avoid further escalation, according to a top official, amid fears that instability in Iran could affect the region.
'We're following the situation very closely… our diplomacy is working hard like many other countries,' Anwar Gargash, adviser to the UAE president, said on Friday. 'Concerns have to be resolved diplomatically… there are many issues in the region (and) if we choose to tackle everything with a hammer, nothing will be left unbroken.'
Israel began an unprecedented attack on Iran last week, killing its top military brass as well as several nuclear scientists and destroyed part of its nuclear program. Iran has responded with a barrage of missile strikes on Israeli cities.
Gargash, who delivered a letter from US President Donald Trump to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in March calling for nuclear talks, said any military escalation to the conflict will be 'detrimental' for the whole region.
'This is setting us back. The language of conflict is overpowering the new language of de-escalation and economic prosperity for the region,' Gargash said.
Across the Gulf, growing anxiety about the conflict is driving efforts to prevent further escalation.
Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman spoke with Trump and called for a de-escalation hours after Israel struck Iran on June 13. The Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, also spoke to the president and called for the crisis to be resolved 'through diplomatic means.'
'We have been making all the possible communication between all the parties regionally and abroad. These talks between us have been about finding a way out of the rabbit hole when it comes to this escalation,' the Qatari foreign ministry spokesperson Majed Al Ansari said Tuesday.
Last month, Trump was feted with grand welcomes and trillion-dollar deals when he visited three Gulf Arab nations for the first presidential visit of his second term. At the time, Trump praised the 'birth of a modern Middle East' and signaled his intent to sign a deal with Iran to prevent it from building a nuclear bomb.
US President Donald Trump is greeted by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman as he arrives at King Khalid International Airport on May 13, 2025, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.But after Israel struck and killed Iran's military leadership and nuclear scientists, Trump shifted his rhetoric, teasing a possible US military intervention on Iran.
The president's threats have his Arab allies worried and fearing Iranian reprisal attacks against the US on their soil, where the US has a significant military presence. Major exporters of energy, the Gulf states also fear that Iran may shut the Strait of Hormuz on its southern shore, through which a third of seaborne oil passes.
Nightmare scenario
Gulf Arab states, long critical of Iran's nuclear ambitions and its support for proxy militias across the Middle East, have in recent years softened their stance toward Tehran, pivoting toward diplomacy and rapprochement to avoid conflict.
Experts warn that a US attack on Iran could draw it into a quagmire even more challenging than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – a drawn-out confrontation that could last the duration of Trump's presidency and exact a heavy toll on American lives and resources at Israel's behest.
'Iran is large and could be fractured and divided along ethnic lines, (and it) has a considerable stockpile of missiles, UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles)… that essentially could fall out of central state control,' Hasan Alhasan, senior fellow for Middle East policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Bahrain, told CNN.
'I don't think anyone wants to see Iran slide to chaos, I think there is a broader desire and preference to deal with one bad actor rather than multiple bad actors,' he said.
Firas Maksad, managing director for the Middle East at Eurasia Group, told CNN that Gulf Arab states are in a comfortable position seeing Iran weakened, but would much rather prefer diplomacy to avoid instability in the region.
'If there is in fact a diplomatic breakthrough… where Iran's nuclear ambitions towards a nuclear weapon at least are capped, Iran is much weakened and stability returns, that's a very positive outcome for (Gulf states),' he said.
'I would have to say, though, that the concern is that (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu drags the region and drags President Trump into further escalation by perhaps taking out Iran's ability to export oil,' he added. 'That might then take us in a much more negative direction in terms of blowback against Gulf (oil) facilities.'
Trump's announcement on Thursday of a two-week diplomatic window now offers his Gulf Arab allies breathing space to push for de-escalation, following a week of unprecedented regional clashes that left the Middle East rattled and on edge.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al-Ahram Weekly
36 minutes ago
- Al-Ahram Weekly
Twelve days that reshaped modern war - World - Al-Ahram Weekly
The 12 days of the Israeli-Iranian war were closely observed by both the US and China, who viewed it as a case study for potential future confrontations More than a week has passed since a ceasefire was agreed between Israel and Iran in the 12-day war, one of the most intense conflicts both sides have witnessed in the past two decades. It offers priceless lessons to all nations that fight according to Eastern or Western military doctrines or those blending the two approaches. The Chinese writer Sun Tzu wrote in his book the Art of War that 'if you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained, you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.' In fact, both sides understand each other well and have even developed the necessary tactics to achieve optimal results, not only on the military level but also politically. Iran, like other Eastern countries, depends on the A2/AD concept of Anti-Access (A2) and Area Denial (AD). The former is a set of measures aimed at slowing or preventing unfriendly forces from reaching the operational theatre or even operating from long distances. The latter is a set of measures intended to obstruct the manoeuvering of unfriendly forces within the operational theatre. To succeed in such a defence-oriented approach, it is essential to possess advanced electronic and cyber-warfare systems capable of jamming, disrupting, and intercepting communications or radar signals. These systems must be complemented by long-range surveillance and reconnaissance platforms, airborne, ground-based, and naval, as well as a layered integrated air-defence system (IADS) composed of mobile ground-based air defences (GBADs) to counter both long- and short-range threats. These systems should be reinforced by air defence fighters and air superiority assets. Maritime borders must be secured with thousands of naval mines of various types. On the offensive side, it is crucial to maintain an arsenal of thousands of highly accurate guided munitions and missiles of various classes with long ranges that can be launched from land, sea, and air platforms. Significant attention must also be given to submarine warfare, enhancing its capacity to launch cruise missiles and anti-ship weapons. Israel depends on the NATO JAM-GC doctrine, or the 'Joint Access and Maneuver Concept for the Global Commons' that dates from 2015. From this point of view, the ideal solution to counter Eastern military doctrine lies in developing a deeply integrated and interoperable force. This involves merging the capabilities of different branches of the armed forces, air, land, sea, and space, into a unified combat framework. The aim is to conduct offensive operations deep within enemy territory, known as Non-Linear Integrated Attacks (NIA), to achieve three key objectives: disrupting, destroying, and defeating (D3) the adversary's A2/AD (Anti-Access/Area Denial) systems. By accomplishing these, the NATO doctrine can ensure that allied forces have the freedom to manoeuvre and operate across contested battlefields without constraints. This strategy succeeds through three primary goals: first, disabling the enemy's command, control, communications, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems; second, destroying the adversary's integrated defence architecture; and third, neutralising any weapons systems introduced into the battlefield during the conflict. These goals are achieved in two main operational phases. The first focuses on the launch of military operations. It begins with resisting the enemy's initial strikes, whether on the frontlines or rear positions of NATO and allied forces, and limiting losses through defensive tactics and manoeuvre warfare. It continues with precision counterstrikes against pre-selected targets, especially command centres and strategic facilities that could disrupt enemy operations. These attacks also include strikes against ballistic missile stockpiles and launchers to neutralise the opponent's offensive capabilities. Simultaneously, efforts are made to regain the initiative across all domains: air, land, sea, and even space. The second phase, called follow-on operations, is designed to maximise bargaining power in any subsequent negotiations. It includes expanding the scope of combat to sustain dominance across all theatres of war, imposing blockades through military force or economic sanctions, and maintaining logistical supply lines alongside ongoing operations. Crucially, it also involves accelerating military production, especially of precision-guided munitions, to keep pace with the demands of high-intensity warfare. All this raises the essential question of which of these two doctrines is the best? Western military doctrine is built on achieving the highest level of combat effectiveness in the shortest possible time, primarily due to the extremely high cost of operations and the complexity of logistical support. In contrast, Eastern doctrine focuses on denying the adversary its points of superiority for as long as possible. It relies on endurance and the low cost of equipment and logistics, albeit with initially lower effectiveness compared to Western systems. However, over the medium and long term, the effectiveness of the Eastern doctrine approaches that of its Western counterpart through adaptive combat learning, studying the enemy, and employing a variety of evolving tactics. This differs sharply from the Western approach, which consistently seeks to impose its own rules of engagement on the battlefield. As a result, the 12-day war witnessed a significant shift and began moving towards its conclusion due to its staggering cost, reaching $2.9 billion in just 12 days for Israel, solely from the use of precision-guided munitions. These expenditures spanned across air defence systems such as Arrow, David's Sling, and Iron Dome, as well as the Israeli Air Force, which played a decisive role in the early stages of the conflict. This role included the use of ballistic missiles like Golden Horizon and Rocks, along with precision-guided bombs such as JDAMs and their Israeli counterparts the MPR500 and Spice series. These were delivered by F-35 fighter jets, which had a critical mission at the beginning of the campaign: penetrating and completely neutralising Iran's air defence network. Israel was spending millions of dollars per day in an intense war of attrition, while Iran was losing a significant portion of its air defence arsenal, air force, and even its missile capabilities, reportedly depleted by two-thirds. Despite these losses, Iran invested its remaining resources in prolonging the conflict as much as possible. It relied almost exclusively on drones of various types, particularly the Shahed-136, 238, and 101 families, as well as Al-Quds cruise missiles. Although these systems achieved limited success due to Israel's resilient air defences, they maintained a high threat level within Israel, with at least one drone reportedly reaching deep into Israeli territory. On the other side, Iran was unable to launch the intense barrages that were initially expected. However, even the small number of missiles that it did launch had a significant psychological impact, arguably more than operational, and this helped prolong Iran's presence in the conflict despite its mounting losses. Iran also employed hypersonic missiles such as the Khorramshahr and Fattah, which managed to breach Israeli air defences, along with highly manoeuverable systems like Kheibar Shekan and Haj Qassem Basir. Additionally, it deployed missiles capable of carrying glide vehicles such as the Emad and Ghadr as well as cluster-munition-equipped variants like the Shahin-3. This diversity of missile threats posed a daily danger to Israel that could not be underestimated. Even a single successful strike had the potential to cause significant destruction. Even when victorious, modern warfare can cost millions of dollars each day alongside the immense logistical challenges required to maintain battlefield dominance. This financial and operational burden is precisely what pushed the 12-day war towards a swift conclusion. Israel accepted a temporary end to hostilities after securing air superiority over Iranian territory, much like its ongoing operational posture towards Hizbullah in Lebanon and the Syrian regime. Iran, for its part, accepted the ceasefire to begin rebuilding its military forces following severe losses in weapons systems. The outcome was closely observed by both the United States and China, who viewed the conflict as a critical case study for learning lessons applicable to potential future confrontations in the Pacific. Sun Tzu defined the golden rule for victory and the supreme art of war as the ability to subdue the enemy without fighting. This is an accurate description of what is now known as 'strategic deterrence.' This primarily relies on a balance between effective strategic planning, efficient tactical execution, and a prudent political approach that avoids rushing into military operations. It denies the adversary an opportunity to fully assess and adapt to a state's military capabilities, something that could otherwise embolden it to escalate small-scale provocations into broader military campaigns. This dynamic played out with Iran, which engaged in repeated limited clashes before eventually escalating its operations. A similar pattern occurred with Israel during the events of 7 October 2023, which followed a series of prior skirmishes with Hamas. * A version of this article appears in print in the 3 July, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly Follow us on: Facebook Instagram Whatsapp Short link:
Al-Ahram Weekly
2 hours ago
- Al-Ahram Weekly
Hundreds of Palestinian families flee West Bank camp ahead of Israeli demolition orders - War on Gaza
Hundreds of Palestinians fled part of the Tulkarem refugee camp in the occupied West Bank on Wednesday after receiving Israeli demolition orders, joining tens of thousands forcibly uprooted by Israel's relentless military assault on the area. Residents hurriedly loaded their few possessions — mattresses, blankets, washing machines — onto vehicles before taking one last look at their homes and fleeing, local official Faisal Salama said. The demolition order targets some 104 buildings, rendering at least 400 families homeless, Salama added. Late Wednesday, Israel's Supreme Court temporarily froze the planned demolitions following a petition by Adalah, a Palestinian human rights group. The court gave the Israeli army until Sept. 2 to respond. However, as of Thursday, none of the displaced had returned. The Israeli military declined to comment. This latest forced displacement comes amid a sharp escalation of Israeli military assaults on West Bank refugee camps since the onset of Israel's war on Gaza in October 2023, uprooting tens of thousands of Palestinians in the largest campaign of forced displacement in the West Bank since Israel's 1967 occupation. The Israeli military justified the demolitions in Tulkarem by citing a 'high level of terrorism' in the area, calling the destruction a 'tactical necessity' to enable freedom of movement for troops after other options were exhausted. Israeli raids have emptied and severely damaged refugee camps such as Tulkarem and nearby Nur Shams, with troops planning to maintain a presence in some camps for up to a year. Salama said the latest orders have displaced a total of 1,000 families. 'Where will these families live? Where will they go? Their fate is uncertain and unknown,' he said. Subhi Hamdan, 65, said he was given just one day to leave. Despite registering for aid with the cash-strapped Palestinian Authority, he fears he will be left homeless. 'Until now we haven't seen anything at all,' Hamdan said. 'Where can anyone go?' *This story was edited by Ahram Online. Follow us on: Facebook Instagram Whatsapp Short link:
Al-Ahram Weekly
2 hours ago
- Al-Ahram Weekly
Israel's normalization appeal elicits mixed responses in Syria, Lebanon - Region
Israel's attempt to open peace talks with Syria and Lebanon has been met with deep scepticism, as decades of Israeli military aggression, occupation, and violence continue to fuel mistrust in both countries. On Monday, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said Israel had an 'interest in adding countries, Syria and Lebanon, our neighbours, to the circle of peace and normalisation while safeguarding Israel's essential and security interests.' Neither Beirut nor Damascus responded, reflecting deep mistrust after decades of Israeli attacks and occupation. Saar's statement came amid shifting regional dynamics, including the fall of longtime Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in December and the weakening of Lebanese armed group Hezbollah following its latest conflict with Israel. However, Israel's history of military aggression continues to shape attitudes. Syria's new Islamist authorities confirmed indirect talks with Israel aimed at reducing tensions following the Israeli army's occupation of the UN-monitored buffer zone in southern Syria and repeated bombings of Syrian army positions. Damascus condemned the strikes as violations of its sovereignty. Interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa has repeatedly called on the international community to pressure Israel to halt its attacks. While moderating his rhetoric compared with his predecessor, mistrust remains high. 'There is no problem with conducting peace negotiations, but in a way that maintains Syria's dignity,' said housewife Rania al-Fawakhiri in Damascus. 'Of course, we are not talking about complete normalisation, but conditional normalisation that does not undermine our rights.' Syria said the goal of talks is to reimplement the 1974 ceasefire between the two countries — a minimal step amid decades of Israeli hostility. The status of the Golan Heights remains a key sticking point. Israel occupied the area during the 1967 war and annexed it in 1981, a move not recognised internationally. 'We want our land, we have occupied land,' said Damascus lawyer Awad al-Hamad. 'The Golan will only ever be Arab and Syrian.' Saar stated the Golan Heights 'will remain part of the State of Israel' under any future peace agreement, underscoring Tel Aviv's refusal to relinquish occupied territory. Under Assad, Syria's education system labelled Israel 'the usurping entity' and 'the Zionist enemy,' framing the 'liberation of the Golan' as a national duty. Syria and Israel have technically been at war since 1948. No substantive negotiations have taken place since the Syrian civil war began in 2011, which allowed Iran and its regional allies to strengthen their presence amid ongoing Israeli strikes. Israel's push for normalisation follows its military weakening of regional adversaries in Lebanon, Gaza, and Iran, but its continued strikes, ongoing genocide in Gaza, and military occupation continue to fuel tensions. The United States has strongly backed normalisation, with Syria envoy Tom Barrack saying on Sunday that Sharaa 'has indicated that he doesn't hate Israel... and that he wants peace on that border.' Barrack also urged Lebanese officials to commit to fully disarming Hezbollah, a major military and political force resisting Israeli attacks. Despite a ceasefire, Israel has repeatedly bombed Lebanon, targeting Hezbollah positions but also causing civilian casualties and widespread damage. Lebanese officials have demanded full Israeli withdrawal and insisted state forces be the sole bearers of arms. The latest conflict began after Hezbollah attacks in 2023 in support of Palestinians in Gaza escalated into an all-out war with Israel in September. Israeli strikes inflicted heavy damage on Hezbollah-held areas in southern and eastern Lebanon, as well as Beirut's southern suburbs, killing thousands of Lebanese, many of them civilians, and deepening Lebanon's economic crisis. 'Lebanon's wellbeing comes first, and if the only way to get that is through normalisation... we could have a peace treaty to rebuild our country,' said 71-year-old Naim Qassir in Beirut's Hamra district. But not all share that view. 'Even if the whole world normalises with Israel... we the owners of the land in the south, the Beqaa and Dahiyeh will not,' said 46-year-old driver Ahmed Shamas. 'We will fight it until the end of time.' *This story was edited by Ahram Online. Follow us on: Facebook Instagram Whatsapp Short link:
