What exactly are the political elites of the Gulf States discussing during their numerous phone calls? The Saudi Foreign Ministry is not revealing details. But there is no doubt that they are: on the social network X, the ministry lists the numerous conversations that the Saudi government, headed by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, has with political leaders from the Gulf region.
Judging by the analyses and reports of leading think tanks and media commentary, it is mainly about two things: the attitude towards Iran, which has been attacking the Gulf States for more than two weeks, and future relations with the US.
Many of the Gulf States believe that the US, together with Israel, has started a war that they did not actually want. "This is Netanyahu's war. He somehow convinced President Trump to support him", for example, Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former head of Saudi intelligence, told the American television channel CNN in early March.
Why Arab allies are disappointed with the US
At the same time, the Persian Gulf is now looking more soberly at the US. According to many observers, American promises of protection are proving hollow - or at least not as reliable as they had assumed, after many of the missiles launched by Iran were not intercepted.
The rulers in the Persian Gulf had to learn the bitter lesson that American military bases on their territory do not automatically mean protection, on the contrary - because of them they themselves may become even more likely targets for Iran. It is also alleged that the US completely ignored the Gulf states' objections before the war, including warnings of the devastating consequences. In this regard, the Associated Press (AP) quoted anonymous representatives of two Gulf states in early March.
This has led to frustration in some countries in the region. Since the Americans took over the defense of the Gulf states, they have become less and less able to act independently, says, for example, an Arabic-language commentary in the Qatar-funded newspaper Al Araby Al-Jadeed (The New Arab): "It is now clear that the military bases do not serve to protect the Gulf states, but rather prevent them from defending themselves and making independent decisions."
"Cautious neutrality"
Many observers believe that the Gulf War has given rise to a strategic debate. The Qatar-based think tank Middle East Council on Global Affairs speaks of a strategy of "cautious neutrality", whose task is to prevent the Persian Gulf from becoming an arena for foreign conflicts and threatening the economic development models in the region.
Bruno Schmidt-Feuerherd, a political scientist at the University of Oxford, recalls the initial reactions after the Iranian attacks: "At first, they were perceived as being blamed on Israel and only partially on the United States." At the same time, however, the Iranian strikes themselves were perceived as the end of the careful attempts at rapprochement of previous years. So, according to the political scientist, the disappointment of the Gulf states is primarily related to external actors: they had to accept the fact that their security depends on third parties, he points out.
Analyst Pauline Rabe from the Berlin-based think tank Middle East Minds also observes a new frankness in criticism of Washington. "All the Gulf states are now shocked", she says. What is particularly irritating for them is that the decisions were not agreed with them. Above all, Saudi Arabia has "criticized Trump and Netanyahu openly", while Qatar has reacted more restrained.
The debate over US military bases
From the very beginning, the focus of the debate was primarily on US military bases. On the one hand, Iran justifies its attacks with their presence, but on the other hand, the missiles have been hitting civilian targets from the very beginning, such as "airports, hotels and other civilian infrastructure", Schmidt-Feuerherd recalls.
It is also a fact that from the very beginning the United Arab Emirates has been the most severely affected. "So it may not only be a question of American bases, but also of putting pressure on successful models in the region – such as Dubai."
The American think tank "Atlantic Council" points out that it is the economic stability of the Emirates that is particularly vulnerable. Dubai's reputation as a safe place for trade and tourism is a main pillar of the Emirates' economy – and therefore a potential strategic weakness.
In the long term, a war with Iran in the Gulf could lead to a reassessment of security partnerships with the US. "I expect that after the war there will be a reassessment of the situation", says expert Schmidt-Feuerherd. Countries will have to decide "whether American military bases are beneficial to their security or rather pose a risk". However, military integration with the US is so deep that a change of course would take years.
New partnerships are being built
Expert Pauline Rabe also sees the change - as part of a longer-term trend. "The decades-old scheme of "cheap oil for American security guarantees" already seems to many to be an outdated model," she says. But she also believes that rapid changes are unlikely: These relationships have been built over decades and no longer encompass only military cooperation.
At the same time, a strategic reorientation is gradually emerging. For example, Saudi Arabia has expanded its relations with Pakistan and Turkey, and Qatar - with European countries such as Britain or France. – "These developments have existed before. But because of the current situation, they take on greater importance," says Rabe.
Regional stability is crucial for the Gulf states, the expert assures. Their economic transformation projects - from Saudi Arabia's – – "Vision 2030" to the global ambitions of Dubai and Doha - are dependent on whether peace reigns. And with that, from successfully repelling military attacks, Rabe emphasizes.
Author: Kersten Knip