US brought war, not security, to the Gulf
Gulf nations reassess their reliance on the US ‘security umbrella’ as American bases transition from protective shields to primary targets in the escalating conflict with Iran.
Yusuf Ertaş
The Middle East stands on the brink of total war following extensive US-Israeli air operations targeting Iran’s military infrastructure and strategic hubs. As the conflict enters its second week, three pivotal issues have emerged: the heightened risks posed by American bases to host nations in the Gulf, the controversial disarmament of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the strategic positioning of Kurdish actors.
Following the strikes, Tehran retaliated by targeting US bases and strategic facilities across the Gulf with missiles and kamikaze drones. These attacks have shattered the long-held belief in an absolute ‘external security umbrella,’ prompting regional capitals to discuss the necessity of an “independent self-deterrence system.”
Observers note that US military presence is now viewed more as a potential liability than a security shield. This shift in perspective is compounded by threats to energy infrastructure and oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, posing a severe risk to economic stability. Meanwhile, mass rallies in Yemen have echoed calls for the removal of all American bases from Arab lands, describing them as a burden and a source of shame.
Diplomatic traffic intensifies
According to reports in the Arab press, Iran’s decision to direct its reprisals toward Gulf states is being characterised as a “fatal mistake.” The UAE-based Al-Khaleej newspaper argued that these attacks undermine principles of good neighbourliness and sovereignty. However, the escalation has also accelerated diplomatic efforts.
Led by Saudi Arabia and supported by Turkey, Egypt, and several European nations, contacts are reportedly underway to reduce tensions. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has reportedly offered apologies to Gulf states, stating they will not be targeted provided their territories are not used for attacks against the Iranian people.
Writer Abdulbari Atwan suggests that Gulf countries, losing faith in Washington’s protection, are engaging in back-channel diplomacy with Iran. This strategic distancing comes as a response to what is perceived as “reckless” US policies and cracks within the Western alliance.
Decision to disarm Hezbollah
As the regional war expands, the Lebanese file has returned to the forefront. While Israel intensifies strikes on Beirut’s southern suburbs and the Bekaa Valley, the Lebanese government has issued a decision prohibiting Hezbollah’s military activities. While some present this as a step toward stability, others argue it weakens Lebanon’s defences while Israeli violations continue.
Writing for Al-Akhbar, Ibrahim Al-Amin warned that this decision, reportedly shaped by external pressure under Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and President Joseph Aoun, could trigger internal conflict. He noted that the move aligns with US-Israeli objectives and undermines the legitimacy of “resistance” established by the 1989 Taif Agreement.
US seeks to use Kurds as an alternative force
A further dimension of the conflict involves the role of Kurdish actors. Claims suggest that the US and Israel, wary of a repeat of the bloody ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, intend to use Kurdish organisations in Iran and Iraq as proxy forces to destabilise Tehran from within.
Notably, Donald Trump, who recently expressed "full support" for Kurdish groups attacking Iran, later tempered his stance, stating he did not want to make the war more complicated and decided against Kurdish involvement.
Kurdish politics enters 'active neutrality'
Kurdish political actors appear to be adopting a strategy of “active neutrality.” Writing for Shafaq News, Jalal Sheikh Ali noted that Kurdish leadership, scarred by past experiences of being “abandoned” by international allies, views the current conflict as a “war of interests” that does not serve their national cause.
The withdrawal of US support for the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in Rojava has led to significant political disillusionment. Consequently, Kurdish circles are prioritising internal stability, refusing to let the Kurdistan Region of Iraq become a corridor for regional score-settling.
No freedom through foreign intervention
In a featured analysis, Hristo el-Murr argues that foreign interventions justified by "regime change" or "spreading democracy" inevitably lead to the erosion of sovereignty and the fragmentation of the state. He contends that political change is only legitimate when driven by internal dynamics, whereas external powers use the rhetoric of freedom to secure resources and influence.
When freedom becomes a tool for an imperial project
Hristo el-Murr Al-Akhbar, Lebanon
When a state is subjected to military or economic aggression under the slogans of “regime change” or “saving the people,” the first casualty is sovereignty. Sovereignty is the political expression of a people's right to self-determination. When the US and Israel attack Iran claiming to change the regime, the real question is not whether the government is oppressive, but who holds the legitimacy to decide on that change.
External powers do not act out of moral obligation; they calculate how change serves their interests—be it raw materials, trade routes, or military positioning. History, such as the war in Iraq, shows that interventions presented as “liberation” lead to the plundering of wealth and the collapse of institutions.
The weakening of the targeted state is a feature, not a bug, of the war's design. Fragmented states are easier to control. Genuine change must come from within; it may be slower, but it carries the only true legitimacy. Foreign intervention produces dependency, not freedom. In this brutal war, the issue is not about supporting the Iranian administration, but about defending the right of peoples to determine their own destiny against an imperial project.
Arab joint defence
Alaa Thabit Al-Ahram, Egypt
The war between Iran on one side and the US and Israel on the other underscores the desperate need for a joint Arab defence system. US military bases have become a burden, dragging host nations into a conflict they explicitly wished to avoid. This war broke out to serve Israeli interests and specific US goals, not the requirements of any Arab state. Israel, having violated ceasefire agreements thousands of times, continues to target Lebanon and demonstrates expansionist intentions that threaten the entire region.
Kurdistan chooses neutrality
Jalal Sheikh Ali Shafaq News, Iraq
Amidst unprecedented tension, Kurds find themselves facing a complex equation that demands realistic power-reading. This is not a “Kurdish war”; it does not touch upon the national aspirations of the Kurdish people. Therefore, despite missile attacks on cities in the Kurdistan Region, the prevailing position is one of neutrality.
History has taught Kurds that they are often used as "bargaining chips" only to be left with disappointment. The experience in Rojava, where US support for the SDF receded, serves as a stark lesson: international alliances in the Middle East are governed by shifting interests rather than principles. Kurdish neutrality today is not a sign of weakness, but a realistic refusal to be a tool in a struggle where the people pay the price but never reap the rewards.
