News Analysis: Arab and Gulf nations fear US attack on Iran will destabilize the region

BEIRUT - Last month, President Donald Trump stood in the palatial ballroom of the Ritz Carlton in Riyadh, and rebuked America's misadventures in the Middle East.
As Saudi officials and U.S. business leaders looked on, Trump said that too many of his predecessors were "afflicted with the notion that it's our job to look into the souls of foreign leaders and use U.S. policy to dispense justice for their sins."
"In the end, the so-called nation builders wrecked far more nations than they built," he added. "And the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand."
A mere five weeks later, Trump appears to be on the cusp of his own Middle Eastern adventure, one with uncomfortable parallels to America's invasion of Iraq in 2003.
That conflict - which killed at least 100,000 Iraqis and some 4,400 Americans, lasted almost nine years and destabilized the region for half a generation after. It became the prime example of the "forever wars" Trump railed against during his election campaign, and a lesson in the folly of intervening with no clear endgame.
For Trump's Persian Gulf and Arab allies, the prospect of a repeat performance has left them scrabbling for a diplomatic off-ramp.
"There are no nations on the face of the Earth working harder than the Gulf countries today to calm the situation and stop this crazy war. They are absolutely against any military confrontation," said Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, an Emirati political scientist and commentator, adding that leaders of the United Arab Emirates have been "burning the phones" round the clock.
"I've never seen their diplomacy more active and more engaged than it is today to bring an end to this."
Most Arab governments have little love lost on Iran, which they view as an unruly neighbor fomenting unrest in their own backyards. Its nuclear program has long been a concern, but the bigger fear has often been Iran's allies in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, and their loyalties with a Shiite-majority Iran in a Sunni-dominated Arab world.
During the Biden administration, U.S. officials hoped to use that antipathy to forge an anti-Iran coalition that would see friendly nations like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the UAE cooperating with Israel to isolate Tehran.
Instead, rapprochement with Iran has been the modus operandi in recent years, with Gulf countries normalizing and easing tensions with the Islamic Republic under the calculation that regional stability would bring regional prosperity.
All were quick to condemn Israel's attacks last week. Saudi Arabia, which for years engaged in proxy matches with Iran and was often seen as its main competitor for regional influence, denounced what it called "blatant Israeli aggressions against the brotherly Islamic Republic of Iran."
The UAE said much the same. Despite being an enthusiastic member of the Abraham Accords, the Trump-brokered treaty that established relations between Israel and a raft of Arab nations, the UAE excoriated Israel for attacking Iran.
On Tuesday, the Emirati ruler, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, called Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian to express his solidarity; the same day, Emirati Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed emphasized a diplomatic approach was needed to "prevent the situation from spiraling into grave and far-reaching consequences."
That focus on diplomacy, observers say, reflects pragmatism: If the U.S. were to enter the conflict, it's likely Iran - or one of its allied militias - would lash out at American personnel, bases and other interests in the region, including in the UAE.
There are more than 40,000 U.S. soldiers and civilian contractors stationed in the Middle East, according to statements by Pentagon officials (though that number has fluctuated since Hamas' attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023).
The Council on Foreign Relations says the U.S. operates military facilities in 19 locations in countries such as Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria and the UAE. Eight of the facilities are considered permanent.
Pro-Iranian groups in Iraq and Syria have in the past regularly attacked U.S. bases. Last year, a drone launched by an Iranian-backed militia on a U.S. base in Jordan near the Syrian border killed three U.S. soldiers and injured 47 others.
Also, there is precedent for Iran's allies attacking economic concerns, such as when the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen sent drones striking oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia in 2019 and the UAE in 2022.
Iran may also decide to close the Strait of Hormuz, a vital passageway that handles a fifth of the world's energy flows. Meanwhile, Qatar shares ownership of the South Pars/North Dome field in Iran, the largest natural gas field in the world, which was hit last week in Israel's strikes.
The UAE and other Gulf countries "absolutely do not want to be caught in the middle of a broader conflict nor do they want to be targeted by any party, as they have been in the past," said Elham Fakhro, a Gulf researcher at Harvard's Belfer Center. She added governments also fear fallout from a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities could contaminate natural resources they share with Iran.
Others, unsure how far the U.S. and Israel will go - whether they still stop at crippling Iran's nuclear and missile programs or push for regime change - fear the impacts of the Iranian state disintegrating. Foremost in their minds are the aftereffects of America's toppling of Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein, which unleashed sectarian rage, saw Iraq engulfed in blood-drenched bedlam and empowered terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.
"It's not in the interest of the Gulf states to see their large neighbor Iran collapse," wrote former Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim Jaber Al Thani in a post on X, adding that the region saw the consequences of what happened in Iraq. He urged Gulf decision-makers to "immediately halt this madness initiated by Israel."
"This war will also have profound repercussions for our region and perhaps the world," he wrote. "Ultimately, the victor will not always be victorious and the vanquished will never be defeated."
Behind that rhetoric is a growing conviction that Israel, rather than Iran, is the biggest threat to instability in the region, said Abdulla, the Emirati political scientist. Iran, after all, is diminished. In the past, it could rely on the so-called "Axis of Resistance" - a constellation of pro-Tehran militias and governments in Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan - to frustrate adversaries' plans. But the last 20 months of fighting have seen Israel cripple militant groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah while the U.S. has subdued Iraqi militias.
Israel, on the other hand, he said, continues to wreak havoc in Gaza and is planning to annex the West Bank. It has also occupied areas in Syria.
"Imperial Iran is probably no longer. OK, that's an opportunity. But imperial Israel is not necessarily good for the stability of the region either," Abdulla said.
U.S. intelligence officials say Iran is not pursuing a nuclear bomb - contradicting Trump, who has said the opposite - and intelligence assessment experts quoted by CNN this week said Tehran was at least three years away from building a bomb and delivering it in a strike.
(For all his complaints about American interventions in the Middle East - and claims that he had opposed the Iraq war two decades ago - when Trump was asked by radio personality Howard Stern in 2002 if he supported invading Iraq, he replied, "Yeah, I guess so. I wish the first time it was done correctly.")
If the U.S. were to attack Iran now, it would likely supercharge efforts to bulk up the militaries not just in Iran but elsewhere in the region.
This week, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said regional threats necessitated a ramping up of his nation's medium- and long-range missiles, saying they were needed for deterrence.
"Soon, we'll reach a defense capacity that no one will dare challenge. … If you're not strong politically, socially, economically and militarily, you lack deterrence, and you're vulnerable," Erdogan said. "We will elevate our level of deterrence so high that not only will they not attack us - they won't even dare to think about it."
Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

21 minutes ago

• Yahoo

What to know about the Iranian nuclear sites that were hit by US strikes

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — U.S. forces have attacked three Iranian nuclear and military sites, further upping the stakes in the Israel-Iran war. President Donald Trump said the strikes, which he described as 'very successful,' had hit the Natanz, Fordo and Isfahan sites, with Fordo being the primary target. The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran confirmed there were attacks early Sunday at all three nuclear sites. Israel launched a surprise barrage of attacks on sites in Iran on June 13, which Israeli officials said was necessary to head off what they claimed was an imminent threat that Iran would build nuclear bombs. Iran, which has long insisted its nuclear program is peaceful, has retaliated with a series of missile and drone strikes in Israel, while Israel has continued to strike sites in Iran. The U.S. and Iran had been in talks that could have resulted in the U.S. lifting some of its crushing economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for Tehran drastically limiting or ending its enrichment of uranium. Until Saturday, Washington had helped shoot down Iranian strikes on Israel but had not launched direct attacks on Iran. Here's a look at the sites Trump said the U.S. struck and their importance to Iran's nuclear program. Natanz enrichment facility Iran's nuclear facility at Natanz, located some 220 kilometers (135 miles) southeast of Tehran, is the country's main enrichment site and had already been targeted by Israeli airstrikes. Uranium had been enriched to up to 60% purity at the site — a mildly radioactive level but a short step away from weapons grade — before Israel destroyed the aboveground part of the facility, according to the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. Another part of the facility on Iran's Central Plateau is underground to defend against potential airstrikes. It operates multiple cascades, or groups of centrifuges working together to more quickly enrich uranium. The IAEA has said it believes that most if not all of these centrifuges were destroyed by an Israeli strike that cut off power to the site. The IAEA said those strikes caused contamination only at the site itself, not the surrounding area. Iran also is burrowing into the Kūh-e Kolang Gaz Lā, or Pickax Mountain, which is just beyond Natanz's southern fencing. Natanz has been targeted by the Stuxnet virus, believed to be an Israeli and American creation, which destroyed Iranian centrifuges. Two separate attacks, attributed to Israel, also have struck the facility. Fordo enrichment facility Iran's nuclear facility at Fordo is located some 100 kilometers (60 miles) southwest of Tehran. It also hosts centrifuge cascades, but isn't as big as Natanz. Its construction began at least in 2007, according to the IAEA, although Iran only informed the U.N. nuclear watchdog about the facility in 2009 after the U.S. and allied Western intelligence agencies became aware of its existence. Buried under a mountain and protected by anti-aircraft batteries, Fordo appears designed to withstand airstrikes. Military experts have said it could likely only be targeted by 'bunker buster' bombs — a term for bombs that are designed to penetrate deep below the surface before exploding — such as the latest GBU-57 A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb in the American arsenal. The roughly 30,000 pound (13,600 kilogram) precision-guided bomb is designed to attack deeply buried and hardened bunkers and tunnels. The U.S. has only configured and programed its B-2 Spirit stealth bomber to deliver that bomb, according to the Air Force. The B-2 is only flown by the Air Force, and is produced by Northrop Grumman, meaning that Washington would have to be involved in such an operation. Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center The facility in Isfahan, some 350 kilometers (215 miles) southeast of Tehran, employs thousands of nuclear scientists. It also is home to three Chinese research reactors and laboratories associated with the country's atomic program. Israel has struck buildings at the Isfahan nuclear site, among them a uranium conversion facility. The IAEA said there has been no sign of increased radiation at the site. Other nuclear sites Iran has several other sites in its nuclear program that were not announced as targets in the U.S. strikes. Iran's only commercial nuclear power plant is in Bushehr on the Persian Gulf, some 750 kilometers (465 miles) south of Tehran. Iran is building two other reactors like it at the site. Bushehr is fueled by uranium produced in Russia, not Iran, and is monitored by the IAEA. The Arak heavy water reactor is 250 kilometers (155 miles) southwest of Tehran. Heavy water helps cool nuclear reactors, but it produces plutonium as a byproduct that can potentially be used in nuclear weapons. Iran had agreed under its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers to redesign the facility to relieve proliferation concerns. The Tehran Research Reactor is at the headquarters of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, the civilian body overseeing the country's atomic program. It initially required highly enriched uranium but was later retrofitted to use low-enriched uranium over proliferation concerns. ___ Associated Press staff writer Abby Sewell in Beirut contributed to this report. ___ The Associated Press receives support for nuclear security coverage from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Outrider Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. ___ Additional AP coverage of the nuclear landscape:

CNBC

22 minutes ago

• CNBC

Some lawmakers in both parties question the legality of Trump's Iran strikes

WASHINGTON — Several members of Congress in both parties Saturday questioned the legality of President Donald Trump's move to launch military strikes on Iran. While Republican leaders and many rank-and-file members stood by Trump's decision to bomb Iran's major nuclear enrichment facilities, at least two GOP lawmakers joined Democrats across the party spectrum in suggesting it was unconstitutional for him to bomb Iran without approval from Congress. "While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional," Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, who usually aligns with Trump, said on X. "I look forward to his remarks tonight." Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., said in response to Trump's social media post announcing the strikes: "This is not Constitutional." Massie introduced a bipartisan resolution this week seeking to block U.S. military action against Iran "unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran" passed by Congress. In brief remarks from the White House on Saturday night, Trump defended the strikes but did not mention the basis of his legal authority to launch them without Congress' having given him that power. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., reacted in real time during a speech in Tulsa, Oklahoma, slamming Trump's actions as "grossly unconstitutional." "The only entity that can take this country to war is the U.S. Congress. The president does not have the right," Sanders told the crowd, which broke out in "no more war!" chants. Some Democrats called it an impeachable offense for the president to bomb Iran without approval from Congress. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said Trump's move is "absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment." "The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers," she said on X. "He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations." Rep. Sean Casten, D-Ill., said on social media: "This is not about the merits of Iran's nuclear program. No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense." Casten called on House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to "grow a spine" and protect the war powers reserved for Congress. Johnson said Trump respects the Constitution as he sought to lay the groundwork to defend his decision to act unilaterally. "The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight's necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties," he said in a statement. Johnson's remarks, along with support for Trump's move offered by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., indicate that Trump may have sufficient political cover to avoid blowback from the Republican-controlled Congress. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said Trump "failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East." But he stopped short of labeling the military action illegal or unconstitutional. House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., was more direct on the legal question. "The power to declare war resides solely with Congress. Donald Trump's unilateral decision to attack Iran is unauthorized and unconstitutional," said Clark, the No. 2 Democrat. "In doing so, the President has exposed our military and diplomatic personnel in the region to the risk of further escalation." Appearing Saturday night on MSNBC, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who co-authored the resolution with Massie, wondered whether the anti-war voters who support Trump would back his move. "This is the first true crack in the MAGA base," he said, noting that Trump's rise in the 2016 primaries was aided by his move to slam President George W. Bush for the Iraq war.

Boston Globe

25 minutes ago

• Boston Globe

Senators Markey and Warren decry Trump's Iran strikes as unconstitutional

'Only Congress can declare war — and the Senate must vote immediately to prevent another endless war,' Warren said. Fellow Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey agreed, calling the strike 'illegal' for having lacked congressional approval. He said in a statement that Saturday's attack may set back Iran's nuclear ambitions, but added that not only can the country 'rebuild its program,' it 'will now be highly motivated to do so.' 'A diplomatic solution remains the best way to permanently and verifiably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,' Markey said. Chants of 'No More War' broke out at a Bernie Sanders rally in Tulsa, Okla., after the Vermont Senator read Trump's 'alarming' social media post announcing the strikes. 'The American people do not want more war, more death,' he said. Advertisement Massachusetts Peace Action, a Cambridge-based advocacy group, called for state leaders to speak out. The organization specifically called on Congressional leaders to pass the war power resolutions filed by Senator Tim Kaine and Representative Thomas Massie to prevent further US military action. 'We call on Massachusetts political leaders to speak out strongly against President Trump's lawless military adventure,' the organization wrote on Saturday night, shortly after the US attack on Iran. Brian Garvey, the organization's executive director, said an 'emergency event' was being planned outside Park Street Station at 1 p.m. Sunday, in protest of the strikes. Advertisement 'This direct attack by the United States on Iran a dramatic escalation by President Trump,' Garvey said in a phone call Saturday night. 'It's incredibly dangerous, it's unnecessary, and frankly, it's illegal.' Garvey said the founding fathers were explicit in giving Congress the power to declare war, adding that this is 'not how the government is supposed to work.' 'It is perhaps especially terrible because this is a president who ran saying he was going to seek peace,' he said. 'Back in 2016, he said the Iraq War was a big fat mistake. I fear that what he is leading us into could be even worse than that debacle and quagmire.' Garvey said he was 'fearful' for the US service members stationed in the Middle East, and 'outraged' that the strikes threatened their safety. Camilo Fonseca can be reached at