Gulf States’ Reactions to Iran Conflict

In the early hours of Saturday morning, February 28, 2026, the Middle East entered an unprecedented phase of escalation following the announcement by the United States and Israel that they had carried out extensive airstrikes inside Iranian territory.

U.S. President Donald Trump announced the launch of large-scale combat operations, stating that the objective was to destroy Iran’s nuclear program and degrade Tehran’s ballistic missile capabilities. The strikes targeted military sites and defensive infrastructure in Tehran and other Iranian cities as part of a coordinated operation between Washington and Tel Aviv.

Iran’s response was swift. Within hours, Tehran launched waves of ballistic missiles and drones toward targets inside Israel, while also striking U.S. military bases in the region. Iranian leaders said the response came “in self-defense,” following what they described as a “direct aggression” against Iranian sovereignty.

As the scope of the retaliation expanded, the repercussions quickly reached the Gulf region. Air defense systems were activated in several countries to intercept missiles heading toward bases hosting U.S. military forces.

Reports indicated that military facilities in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia were targeted, prompting these countries to take urgent security measures, including raising alert levels and temporarily closing parts of their airspace as a precaution.

International media reported aerial interceptions in multiple locations, while sirens were heard in some areas—clear signs that the escalation was no longer confined to Iran and Israel, but that the Gulf had become a direct part of the exchange of strikes.

Politically, Gulf states moved quickly to issue statements condemning the attacks on their territories, stressing that targeting facilities or bases within their borders constitute a clear violation of sovereignty and a threat to regional security.

They emphasized their right to take all necessary measures to protect their land and citizens, warning of the dangers of the region sliding into a broader conflict.

Oman, however, struck a different tone, leaning toward de-escalation. Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al-Busaidi called for an end to the escalation and a return to diplomacy, expressing concern over the widening scope of the confrontation.

As the first hours of escalation passed, the scene was not only military but also societal. Across the Gulf, the first day of the war was marked by anxiety and anticipation, close monitoring of developments, precautionary measures, and official efforts to reassure the public and maintain internal stability—particularly as the conflict directly affects the security of cities and critical infrastructure, air traffic, and regional economic stability.

Assessing the first day of developments, Bahraini political adviser and writer Ahmed Al-Khazai said the confrontation appeared to mark a real shift from mutual threats to direct military action.

He explained that the strikes on strategic targets deep inside Iran, combined with the U.S. military buildup in the Gulf, sent a message of force that went beyond tactical pressure, signaling that escalation was no longer merely a negotiating card but had become a field reality imposing new equations on all parties.

Al-Khazai noted that uncertainty still surrounds the nature of the escalation: is it a calculated move aimed at weakening Iran’s capabilities and imposing new terms ahead of a return to negotiations, or the beginning of a longer trajectory of open confrontation?

He added that the scale and spread of the attacks suggest that Israel, with U.S. backing, is treating the step as a strategic move intended to paralyze Iran’s capabilities or change the rules of the game in the region.

The Bahraini analyst concluded that the region now stands at a sharp crossroads: either the escalation remains within the bounds of controlled military and political pressure, or it slips into a full-scale war that redraws the balance of power in the Middle East. The decisive factor, he said, will be the nature of Iran’s response and Washington’s willingness to expand its role from a limited operation into a prolonged campaign.

For his part, Saudi writer and political analyst Ahmed Al-Ibrahim said the situation points to a carefully calibrated but highly dangerous escalation, rather than an open-ended war without limits. He explained that the strikes and responses so far appear tied to mutual deterrence messaging and the restoration of credibility. However, he warned that the margin for error is “extremely narrow,” noting that any miscalculation—such as hitting a highly sensitive target, causing a large number of casualties, or launching a strike deemed an existential threat—could quickly turn the controlled escalation into an open confrontation.

Between deterrence calculations, military alliances, condemnations, and calls for restraint, the central question remains: how does the Gulf view what has happened, and how does it interpret this strike in terms of its own security, stability, and future regional balances?

Gulf Anxiety at Expanding Confrontation

Al-Khazai said Gulf anxiety is justified, as Gulf states lie at the heart of the targeted geography. With U.S. bases and forces on their soil, these countries become direct parties to any confrontation between Washington and Tehran.

He argued that the most likely scenario is a calibrated escalation in which the United States seeks to weaken Iran’s capabilities without sliding into full-scale war, while keeping the door to negotiations open. Nevertheless, the risk of open confrontation remains if Iran’s response is forceful or if Israel expands the battlefield.

He warned that continued attacks on Gulf states could turn them into direct adversaries of Tehran, despite being among the strongest advocates of de-escalation and negotiations.

Al-Khazai also pointed to the dangers of targeting energy facilities and ports, threatening the Strait of Hormuz, and the possibility of non-conventional actors or sleeper cells operating inside some countries—factors that would significantly widen security and economic risks.

Ahmed Al-Ibrahim echoed these concerns, stressing that Gulf anxiety is real, as responses have already affected—or could affect—countries hosting U.S. military assets, while airspace and trade have been disrupted since the first moments of the escalation.

He expects short rounds of strikes and counterstrikes, followed by indirect de-escalation efforts aimed at establishing rules of engagement to prevent expansion. However, he warned of the most dangerous scenarios, including attacks on energy facilities, disruption of navigation in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea, escalation of cyberattacks, or a major strike on a vital installation or civilian facility—any of which could trigger uncontrollable retaliation.

Reactions to Iranian Strikes on Gulf Social Media

Amid the escalation, Gulf social media platforms saw widespread engagement. In a post on X, Saudi media figure Dawood Al-Shirian wrote: “Iran is intensifying its strikes toward Gulf countries at a pace exceeding what it is carrying out against Israel, indicating a focus on targeting U.S. interests in the region.”

Kuwaiti writer and political analyst Abdullah Al-Shayji posted: “Iran is antagonizing all its Gulf neighbors and deepening the crisis of trust. Violating our sovereignty and terrorizing peaceful civilians is unjustifiable. There is no justification for bombing U.S. military bases in our Gulf countries, as they were neutralized and were not used to launch U.S. attacks on Iran.”

From the UAE, media figure Ali Al-Ameri wrote: “The UAE is ready to confront any aggression and possesses advanced military capabilities and air defense systems, with high readiness to professionally handle any emergency. Domestically, things are normal and life continues calmly.”

Who Is the Biggest Loser?

Al-Ibrahim said civilians are often the first to pay the heaviest price in such confrontations—whether in Iran or across the region—as risks to cities and infrastructure grow.

He stressed that the repercussions extend beyond geographic borders, affecting regional and global economies through direct impacts on energy, shipping, aviation, and investment. Meanwhile, deployed forces and military bases become permanent flashpoints, vulnerable to ignition at any moment.

Al-Khazai argued that Iran would be at the center of a war of attrition if the conflict drags on, facing sustained strikes on its military and economic infrastructure, along with additional sanctions that could further cripple its economy.

He added that prolonged confrontation would weaken Iran’s ability to manage internal affairs and could open the door to rising social pressure or opposition movements.

He also warned that Gulf states would pay a heavy price—not necessarily through widespread physical destruction, but through threats to oil and gas facilities and potential disruption of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. Any disruption there, he said, would immediately reverberate through Gulf economies and place them in a highly sensitive security position, in addition to the risk of sleeper cells or Iranian proxies operating inside some countries.

On a broader level, Al-Khazai said the global economy would be among the biggest losers if the confrontation continues, with potential spikes in oil and gas prices and widespread disruption to supply chains—raising the specter of a new global energy crisis.

A prolonged confrontation, he concluded, would not mean the loss of a single party alone, but would signal a comprehensive crisis extending beyond the region to affect the international system as a whole.

The article is a translation of the original Arabic.