The Israeli Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) has published an analysis examining the Gulf states’ strategic posture following the 12-day military confrontation between Tel Aviv and Tehran. The report asserts that the brief war enhanced Gulf visibility and positioning, particularly in light of Iran’s weakened posture—Tehran being the region’s foremost security concern from the Gulf’s perspective.
In its recurring publication Strategic Assessment, the institute noted that while the confrontation dealt a blow to Iran, Gulf states continue to view the Islamic Republic as a serious threat, capable not only of inflicting significant damage but potentially accelerating its nuclear program. For this reason, the INSS downplayed the likelihood of any significant Gulf policy shift toward Iran in the near term.
Gulf Concern Over Israel’s Growing Power
The analysis highlighted that Gulf countries are increasingly uneasy about Israel’s relative rise in regional power. Consequently, they are actively seeking to restore a regional balance—possibly through a U.S.–Iran agreement that could reduce the risk of further war. At the same time, the Gulf considers an end to the war on Gaza a necessary precondition for advancing U.S.-brokered normalisation efforts with Israel.
The report contextualises the June 2025 Israel-Iran war as the third confrontation between the two powers—unsurprising to the Gulf states, who had previously attempted to dissuade President Donald Trump from supporting an Israeli strike. Nonetheless, recent years have seen Gulf capitals preparing politically and militarily for such a scenario.
These preparations included military coordination with the United States, investments in air defence capabilities, and a cautious diplomatic posture aimed at maintaining neutrality and avoiding entanglement, especially after the painful lesson of the 2019 Iranian strike on Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure.
Neutrality, Condemnation, and Strategic Hedging
During the 12-day conflict, all six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries issued strong condemnations of Israel’s actions while reaffirming a position of neutrality. The INSS stressed that these statements should not be interpreted as support for Tehran, but rather as clear expressions of national security concerns and a desire to avoid direct involvement.
The Gulf states, given their geographic proximity to Iran, were acutely aware that further escalation could invite retaliatory strikes on vital infrastructure, such as oil facilities, desalination plants, and seaports. The war tested the détente strategy pursued by Gulf states in recent years, particularly Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, which hinges on sustained regional stability and economic development.
According to the paper, Gulf governments asked the United States not to launch strikes on Iran from their territory to avoid being viewed as co-belligerents. They also urged Washington to avoid expanding attacks beyond nuclear facilities, and requested that Israel not target Iranian oil infrastructure, fearing such actions could provoke Iranian counterattacks on Gulf oil assets.
Emergency Security Measures and Diplomacy
Simultaneously, Gulf countries enacted urgent security protocols—bolstering air defences, coordinating closely with U.S. forces stationed in the region, and raising civil preparedness. Motivated by self-preservation and a desire to solidify their role as regional stakeholders, they also initiated diplomatic mediation efforts aimed at de-escalating the crisis.
Qatar ultimately emerged as the primary mediator, enjoying trust from both the Trump administration and Iranian leadership. Its efforts were supported by Saudi Arabia and Oman, who facilitated message exchanges between Washington and Tehran.
Unlike the 2019 incident, where Iran directly targeted Saudi oil infrastructure, Tehran refrained from attacking Gulf economic assets during the 2025 conflict, despite the more intense pressure it faced. This restraint underscored the importance of continued Gulf–Iran détente from the Gulf’s strategic viewpoint.
The Qatar Strike and Calculated Symbolism
The only Iranian strike within the Gulf during the conflict was a symbolic missile attack on the U.S. Central Command base in Qatar, carried out hours before the ceasefire. Both Doha and Washington were reportedly warned. Qatar was likely chosen for its close ties to Iran, and by absorbing the symbolic strike without retaliating, Qatari mediators helped defuse tensions and facilitate a swift resolution, while avoiding U.S. escalation and enhancing Doha’s credibility in Washington.
Gulf Unease: Israeli Superiority and Regional Fallout
The INSS report acknowledged the clear technological and operational superiority displayed by Israel in its strikes on Iran, highlighting the substantial gap between Israeli capabilities and those of Gulf militaries. Gulf diplomatic sources, the paper noted, are increasingly concerned about two main issues:
- The growing military dominance of Israel at Iran’s expense;
- Israel’s lack of restraint across multiple regional theatres.
In Gulf media narratives, Israel is increasingly portrayed as a rising hegemonic force, in contrast to the Gulf states’ more restrained diplomatic approach. The report warned that Israeli actions—including its confrontations with Houthi forces in Yemen—could eventually pose direct threats to Gulf stability.
Reassessing Gulf Alignments Post-War
Since the war’s end, Gulf states have been reassessing its outcomes and their implications. The key question: Will the Gulf rethink its approach toward both Iran and Israel in light of Israel’s clear military edge?
While the Gulf may be impressed by Israel’s military prowess, concerns persist over potential shifts in Iran’s internal dynamics. The region is closely monitoring Tehran’s post-war stability and fears that increased instability or the rise of more radical elements could destabilise the region.
This concern was reflected in recent Saudi press commentary, which hoped for internal reforms in Iran without regime change, calling for prioritising socio-economic development over revolutionary ideology.
Gulf States at a Crossroads
The INSS concluded that the Israel-Iran war has placed the Gulf at a critical juncture:
- Either continue their current cautious balancing act between Washington and Tehran,
- Or fully commit to deeper alignment with the U.S. and Israel—even at the risk of confrontation with Iran.
Regardless of their choice, evolving regional dynamics demand a full reassessment of Gulf strategy—from partnerships to power projections and the Gulf’s future role in shaping a new Middle East security order.
Conclusion: Israeli Leverage, Palestinian Precondition
The war exposed Iran’s conventional military weakness and Israel’s battlefield superiority. This imbalance may encourage some Gulf states—particularly Saudi Arabia—to deepen ties with Israel and pursue normalisation. However, the pace and scope of such efforts will depend heavily on how Israel handles the Palestinian issue, especially the war on Gaza.
The INSS concluded by noting a fundamental contradiction in Gulf policy: the desire to remain neutral while engaging in regional mediation, versus the internal need for a strong, reliable U.S. security commitment. In practice, the Gulf’s decision to side with the U.S. after the war suggests growing alignment with the American-Israeli axis, even as the unresolved Israel-Iran conflict continues to expose the vulnerability of Gulf states, symbolised by the Iranian strike on Qatar, a calculated reminder of the limits of Gulf deterrence.
