Gulf Arab States Explore New Security Options as U.S. Bases Fail to Deter Iran

Gulf Arab states have long relied on U.S. military bases hosted on their territory as the backbone of their security. But after six months of war, repeated Iranian missile and drone attacks have exposed the limitations of American security guarantees. Gulf governments are now exploring new ways to protect themselves, including direct diplomacy with Iran.

Iran and its allies have damaged several U.S. military facilities, set luxury hotels ablaze and, most recently, knocked out a critical piece of energy infrastructure — an oil pipeline running across Saudi Arabia.

With few alternatives, Gulf officials are seeking ways to reduce the risk of further attacks by Iran and its allies. Direct engagement with Tehran is emerging as one option, although it has already encountered significant obstacles.

A meeting between Iran and Gulf Arab states that had been scheduled for Monday was abruptly postponed after Saudi Arabia and Iran reached an impasse over the Strait of Hormuz, according to a senior Gulf official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations.

The Strait of Hormuz is a vital shipping route for Gulf energy exporters. Iran has severely restricted traffic through the strait and has threatened to impose tolls or fees on vessels using the route.

Bader Al-Saif, an assistant professor of history at Kuwait University, said Gulf countries were now being forced to rethink their long-standing dependence on external security providers.

“We need to snap out of this external protector syndrome,” he said, arguing that the region must build new security arrangements while maintaining some of its existing partnerships.

Bahrain illustrates the dilemma. The country has hosted a major U.S. naval base for decades, partly as a deterrent against Iran. But during the war, the base itself became a target.

The facility was nearly destroyed in February, on the first day of Iran’s retaliatory attacks following the U.S.-Israeli assault. Most of the sailors stationed there were evacuated to Florida, leaving only a small contingent behind, according to a U.S. military official.

Some sailors were evacuated so quickly that the U.S. Navy is still working to reunite them with their belongings. Adm. Daryl Caudle, the chief of naval operations, recently said it remained unclear when they would return.

The war has also exposed broader strategic vulnerabilities for both Washington and its Gulf partners. Iran’s effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz has created a major economic setback for Gulf energy exporters, while the inability of U.S. forces to prevent repeated Iranian attacks has raised questions about the credibility and limits of the American security umbrella.

Yet Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain have no obvious single replacement for the United States.

Despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars over decades on advanced weapons, including American F-15 fighter jets and Patriot missile defense systems, the Gulf states have smaller and less capable militaries than Iran.

China and Russia have close relations with many Gulf countries, but neither has stepped in to provide direct military protection against Iranian attacks.

As a result, Gulf officials are increasingly calling for greater regional self-reliance in defense. One proposal involves deeper defense cooperation among Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey. But the effectiveness of such arrangements remains uncertain, particularly over whether the countries involved would be willing and able to defend one another in a crisis.

Yasmine Farouk, director of the Gulf and Arabian Peninsula project at the International Crisis Group, said the most realistic approach would be to establish defense partnerships that supplement rather than replace the U.S. security umbrella.

Gulf officials and analysts also acknowledge that without American military assistance and weapons such as air-defense systems, the damage caused by Iranian attacks would probably have been considerably worse. Dozens of people were killed, while flights carrying tourists and business travelers were disrupted before gradually beginning to resume.

Still, Iran’s campaign has caused significant disruption to the Gulf’s energy-rich economies and damaged their long-standing reputation as safe havens in a volatile region.

Kristian Alexander, a senior fellow at the Rabdan Security & Defence Institute, said the war had demonstrated that the Gulf’s sophisticated air-defense systems were not “leak proof.” Iran, he said, could impose major costs on the Gulf states by deploying large numbers of relatively inexpensive drones.

Alexander also argued that, under pressure from Iranian counterattacks, Washington had prioritized protecting U.S. personnel and defending Israel. Those priorities, he said, did not always correspond with the Gulf states’ need to protect airports, ports and desalination facilities.

A shortage of U.S. missile interceptors around the world also created difficulties for Gulf countries during the early stages of the war. They subsequently sought additional defensive capabilities from Ukraine and European countries. But even stronger air defenses cannot provide complete protection against large numbers of relatively cheap drones.

The White House has rejected suggestions that U.S. security assistance to the Gulf has been inadequate. White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said President Donald Trump remained in constant communication with regional partners and that Washington’s ties with the Gulf states were stronger than ever.

Meanwhile, Gulf Arab officials were preparing to meet Iranian officials in Oman to discuss new arrangements for regional security and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. The meeting was postponed after Saudi Arabia proposed amendments to an Iranian-Omani plan for shipping operations.

Among Riyadh’s proposed changes was a rejection of Iran’s assertion that the Strait of Hormuz is not international waters. Iran rejected some of the Saudi amendments and requested more time to review others.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said the meeting would have provided an opportunity to discuss the creation of a secure region free from outside interference. He confirmed that Saudi Arabia had requested the delay. No new date has been announced.

Analysts nevertheless expect diplomatic efforts to continue as Gulf states seek ways to manage their differences with Tehran.

Oman has emerged as an important advocate of a new regional security framework. In July, Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi called for a multilateral arrangement involving the Gulf Arab states, Iran and Iraq, with the countries sharing responsibility for regional security.

Such a framework, he argued, would require a reassessment of relations with major partners such as the United States and a rebalancing of regional alliances.

Several Gulf states had already begun rapprochement efforts with Iran before the war, hoping that reduced tensions would improve their security. The war initially derailed those efforts, but months later Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar have returned to diplomacy, largely because they have few other options.

Their objective is to gradually rebuild trust with Iran and develop shared economic interests that could create incentives for stability.

Anwar Gargash, a senior Emirati official, recently acknowledged that engagement with Iran was ultimately unavoidable.

“Iran remains our neighbor, and at some point we will have to find a way to restore what can be restored,” he said. “Geography leaves us no alternative to engagement.”

The emerging shift does not necessarily mean the Gulf states are abandoning Washington. Instead, it suggests they are moving toward a more diversified security strategy — one that retains the U.S. security umbrella while building stronger regional defense capabilities and maintaining diplomatic channels with Iran.

Source: The Newyork Times