Missile Barrage Tests Gulf Restraint Toward Iran

How long can Gulf countries continue limiting their response to intercepting Iranian missiles and drones in their airspace and over their territory?

Gulf experts who spoke with Alhurra say the Gulf’s entry into the conflict depends on one specific condition.

Figures from the ministries of defense in the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Kuwait indicate that Iran has launched at least 465 ballistic missiles toward these countries since the start of the U.S.–Israeli airstrikes against Iran four days ago, in addition to hundreds of drones and cruise missiles.

Despite the fact that Gulf capitals have gone beyond merely issuing statements of condemnation, they have so far stopped short of anything beyond asserting that they “reserve the right to respond.”

Saudi Arabia said it reserves the right to take “all necessary measures,” including “responding,” following repeated Iranian attacks — most recently the targeting of the U.S. Embassy building in Riyadh. Qatar condemned the Iranian attacks and informed the UN Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council that it retains its full right to respond. The United Arab Emirates said it reserves the right to defend its sovereignty in accordance with international law, while also stressing that it does not seek to expand the confrontation.

In Kuwait, where the U.S. Embassy was targeted in an Iranian attack, Kuwaiti officials condemned what they described as the “heinous Iranian attack.” They also invoked the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1961 Vienna Convention, which grant diplomatic premises and personnel immunity even in times of armed conflict.

Statements of condemnation issued by Gulf states indicate that they consider the Iranian attacks “a direct assault” on their sovereignty, despite Iran’s claims that it is targeting sites belonging to U.S. forces. The statements also leave open the question of when a response might occur.

Outside official circles, public frustration can be observed across the Gulf, with growing calls not to remain confined to a defensive posture in the face of Iranian missiles.

Saudi journalist Saleh Al-Fuhaid wrote in a post on X that Gulf states may ultimately be forced to join the war against Iran, adding that “it is not reasonable for them to limit themselves only to intercepting Iranian missiles and drones.”

By contrast, political and military analyst Dhafer Al-Ajmi says the Gulf position reflects a “calculated and balanced approach” that remains fundamentally defensive, focusing on protecting airspace and vital infrastructure through advanced defense systems and cooperation with the United States, without engaging in direct offensive action.

He adds that shifting to offensive operations would require exceptional justification, such as an existential threat or heavy human casualties. Gulf states, he notes, prefer collective deterrence through alliances, making any military shift likely only within a clear legal and collective framework.

Discussion is currently underway about the cost of defensive attrition for Gulf countries. Gulf authorities say they have dealt with more than 1,700 aerial attacks within days, in what has become one of the largest defensive strain campaigns the region has witnessed in decades.

A report by Bloomberg spoke of increasing pressure on interceptor missile stockpiles in Qatar and the UAE. According to the report, Qatar’s Patriot missile stockpile might last four days at the current rate of use, and Doha is quietly pushing for a rapid end to the conflict.

Both the UAE and Qatar denied the claims contained in the Bloomberg report. The UAE’s foreign ministry accused the agency of “distorting” information regarding the country’s “high level of readiness.” Doha stated that its Patriot missile stockpiles have not been depleted, and that its armed forces maintain full readiness and sufficient reserves to secure the country.

Academic and political analyst Khaled Batterjee believes Gulf states are not direct parties to the confrontation and are not interested in an open war with Iran. Their policy — particularly that of Saudi Arabia — aims to prevent the conflict from expanding, given the broad economic and security consequences that could result. However, he stresses that these states will not stand idle if subjected to direct aggression.

He adds that any shift toward offensive action would depend on a large-scale and direct threat, with clear Iranian responsibility and the failure of diplomatic avenues. Such a scenario is theoretically possible, he says, but not the preferred option.

Meanwhile, according to Israel’s public broadcaster, a senior Israeli official predicted that Riyadh might attack Iranian targets following strikes against Saudi interests. No official Saudi comment has been issued on the matter.

Al-Ajmi notes that the official Gulf language emphasizing the right of self-defense and the option of response constitutes a calculated deterrent message to Tehran rather than a declaration of war, while keeping the door open for diplomacy.

In his assessment, the region is currently in a phase of “advanced deterrence,” focused on securing airspace and territorial waters without large-scale ground mobilization. The offensive option remains linked to Iran’s behavior. In short, Gulf states do not seek a comprehensive war, but they also refuse to remain an open arena for attacks.

Batterjee agrees with this assessment, arguing that striking targets inside Iran would mean a full-scale regional war, something Gulf states are keen to avoid. He believes the response will likely remain within the framework of defensive escalation, indirect deterrence through alliances, and confronting Tehran’s proxies in accordance with international law. Direct strikes inside Iranian territory would remain an exceptional option, used only if attacks cross red lines and directly threaten national security.

On Tuesday, foreign ministers of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) held an emergency virtual meeting, condemning what they described as “Iranian aggressions.” The statement stressed that member states retain their full right to take “all necessary measures” to protect their security, including the option of “response.”

The article is a translation of the original Arabic.