Iran brings war to Gulf’s doorstep with missile strikes on US allies, escalating conflict and hardening US-Arab alliance

DUBAI, March 1 — Thunderous blasts and towering fireballs from Iranian missiles streaking across Gulf states vindicated their leaders’ long-held fears that Tehran can bring war to their doorstep, likely to harden Arab rulers’ support for US-Israeli strikes.

Even in the Palm, Dubai’s swankiest resort, explosions rattled buildings and hit a luxury hotel, sending panicked residents running for cover as missiles and interceptors tore across the sky. It was a stark sign that the conflict had spilled beyond Iran’s borders — just as Tehran had warned it would.

“What has now been proven is that we — not the United States — are in the line of fire,” said Dr Ebtesam Al-Ketbi, President of the Emirates Policy Centre. “When Iran struck, it struck the Gulf first under the pretext of targeting US bases.”

Analysts say Iran’s strikes on Gulf countries are meant to demonstrate that no US ally in the region is beyond reach, and to raise the cost of backing Washington’s campaign.

“The danger is that any miscalculation could push the region from an exchange of signals into an open war,” added al Ketbi.

‘Existential’ war

Gulf sources say that by targeting oil-rich Gulf states, Tehran is “internationalising the battlefield” and threatening global oil flows, not just regional security.

For fast-growing economies such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates — dependent on open airspace, secure shipping lanes and trade — a broader conflict would be deeply disruptive.

In framing the war as a push for regime change in Iran, Trump has made it existential, raising the risk that Tehran lashes out, said Mohammed Baharoon, director-general of the Dubai Public Policy Research Centre (B’huth).

“If Iran miscalculates and carries out an act of war against Gulf Cooperation Council countries, the conflict will change fundamentally. People can’t ⁠stand by while lives are being lost and assets destroyed and do nothing.”

Gulf ⁠analyst Abdelkhaleq Abdulla said Iran was making a strategic mistake by targeting its closest neighbours.

“It is foolish of ⁠Iran to alienate the people nearest to it,” Abdulla ⁠said. “Tehran may believe it is ⁠targeting US military bases, but Gulf states see this as a blatant act of aggression — a violation of their sovereignty and an attack on their land.”

In indirect US-Iran talks in recent weeks aimed at averting war, Tehran agreed to discuss its nuclear programme but insisted its ballistic missiles and support for regional militias were off the table, ⁠sources close to the talks said.

Iran has indicated that any discussion about its missiles and its allied militias take place only in a regional framework, without Washington, the sources said.

But the Gulf Arab states — longtime US partners which have previous experience of being targets of attacks by Iran and its proxies — argue that sidelining Washington would weaken, not stabilise the region’s security architecture.

From the Gulf perspective, Iran’s missile arsenal and its proxies pose direct threats. Tehran floated a regional security forum without US participation, but Gulf states saw little traction without external security guarantors.

“The implications are huge for Saudi Arabia and the Gulf,” said one source close ⁠to government circles. “All US allies in the region are now united against Iran.”

Trump raises the risk

Paul Salem of the Middle East Institute noted that Trump’s message has shifted sharply. While just days ago he framed potential US strikes as leverage to push Iran toward a ⁠nuclear deal, his speech announcing them openly called for regime change.

In contrast to the massive 2003 US ground invasion of Iraq, Trump appears to be betting on a short, ⁠decisive campaign that delivers visible ⁠results within days or weeks, limits US casualties and contains domestic political risk.

The calculation is that a quick success would be politically advantageous, while a prolonged conflict — especially one that disrupts oil markets or the wider economy — could prove costly.

While the Bush administration spent months building a legal and political case and deployed some 300,000 troops in a ground invasion that led to years of occupation, Trump has opted for a limited campaign of air strikes.

But if the conflict spreads — drawing in US bases, embassies, energy infrastructure or the world’s most vital oil shipping route through the Strait of Hormuz — the economic and political risks would rise sharply for the United States, the Gulf and global markets. — Reuters