The Red Flame of War: why the Gulf states have changed their approach to security
The American-Israeli aggression against the countries of the Middle East has called into question the long-standing strategy of turning the Jewish state into a "supporting power" in the region. Previously, the monarchies of the Persian Gulf tried to maintain balanced relations with both Washington and Tehran, but now they are increasingly abandoning this strategy. Due to the large-scale crisis provoked by the military escalation of the United States and Israel in Iran, the region began to enter the era of multipolarity. How the concept of security through alliances has changed in the Middle East in this regard, read the Izvestia article.
The ball is in the wrong goal
The US-Israeli strategy of turning Israel into a "major military power" in the Middle East has existed since its formation. For decades, it has brought significant geopolitical benefits to Washington, but in recent years — and especially following the conflict with Iran that has been dragging on since June 2025 — the resulting costs obviously exceed the profits.
For ten years, the Gulf states have tried to ensure internal security by adhering to neutrality in conflicts involving Iran. They were essentially playing for two teams at once — maintaining close relations with Washington, Israel's main ally, and at the same time keeping in touch with Tehran in order to avoid escalation in the region. Now monarchies are reviewing their established diplomatic strategies, and some are abandoning them altogether.
One of the articles in Foreign Affairs indicates that the Persian Gulf countries reject the plan proposed by Washington and West Jerusalem for the post-war structure of the region. Thus, the goal of the United States and Israel is to unite the monarchies to counter Iran's nuclear program and its allies in Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen. At the same time, Israel intends to maintain military superiority over neighboring countries, freedom of action beyond borders, and the ability to dictate terms that allies will be forced to accept. In other words, the "Abraham Agreements" — a series of treaties between the countries of the Middle East, which, in theory, were supposed to regulate political relations in the region, but in practice turned into an attempt by Israel to draw neutral states into its political camp — have practically lost their relevance.
The Gulf states have already begun to develop their own security architecture in the region — they are diversifying military contracts, diplomatic relations and economic agreements with stronger partners. Here, in particular, the United Arab Emirates distinguished itself, which withdrew from the backbone organizations of OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) and OAPEC (Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries). The Iranian crisis, strained relations with neighboring Saudi Arabia, pressure from the United States and the desire to increase resource extraction are the reasons why the UAE has left oil alliances.
Although the Gulf states continue to create the appearance of friendly contacts with Washington, they are still gradually expanding ties both inside and outside the region. For example, the United Arab Emirates is gradually establishing relations with Turkey, and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan signed a mutual defense agreement last year.
The last hero or the new leader
It is no coincidence that the United States chose Israel as the "hegemon of the Middle East." West Jerusalem is Washington's most predictable ally in the region. For decades, the United States has supported the Jewish State and its government by providing weapons, huge budgets, and security. However, Israeli policy, in the end, actually ruined Washington's plan.
The strategy of the United States and Israel faced not a tactical failure, but a systemic contradiction. She tried to combine the economic integration of West Jerusalem into the region, the containment of Iran and its allies and the normalization of relations with the Arab world into one structure, Dmitry Brije, an expert on the Middle East, explained to Izvestia.
— However, the war has shown that these elements are incompatible. It is impossible to simultaneously promote Israel as a regional security center and ignore the fact that many countries perceive it as a source of tension and aggression," he states.
Now several powerful Middle Eastern countries are claiming Israel's "place" at once. The region is beginning to enter a phase of multipolarity, so the spheres of responsibility will be distributed among states: some will be strong in military terms, others in energy, others in diplomacy, and others in finance, logistics, and technology.
Experts believe that Saudi Arabia has become the main candidate for the role of the "Middle Eastern hegemon." She has everything to take this place: enormous financial resources from oil production, the position of leader of the Sunni world, growing diplomacy, as well as a successful economic modernization program Vision 2030.
After some time, having recovered from the consequences of the war, Iran may also act as a candidate for the post of a new superpower in the Middle East, Chairman of the Federation Council Commission on information policy Alexei Pushkov is confident.
"With the third largest oil reserves in the world (proven reserves amount to 208 billion barrels), a powerful missile potential that has proven its effectiveness, an autonomous and rooted culture, a population of 92 million people and control over the Strait of Hormuz, the main oil artery of the planet, Iran has every chance to grow to the main regional pole of power in the emerging multipolar world."" The senator wrote in his Facebook channel.
Analysts suggest that Turkey is also capable of strengthening its influence in the region as a military-industrial, logistical and diplomatic player. The country has long positioned itself not only as a member of the North Atlantic Alliance, but also as an independent Middle Eastern power. It may not be able to fully take Israel's place, but it is likely to be one of the States offering alternative formats of political cooperation to the Middle East.
Syria turned out to be another country claiming to be a "supporting power in the Middle East." However, the internal political turmoil somewhat complicates the implementation of such a scenario. It is likely that the republic will take the place of a new regional architecture with developed political and energy potential. And the UAE and Qatar, in turn, will play the role of financial, intermediary and logistics centers in the Middle East.
Flexible diplomacy
The concept of security through alliances in the Middle East has significantly transformed. The monarchies of the Persian Gulf have realized that being part of someone else's security architecture automatically means being constantly targeted by political opponents.
Now it is not empty guarantees of protection that come to the fore, as was the case with the United States, but really useful cooperation that can bring benefits. As a result, influence in the Middle East region has taken the form of "flexible diplomacy." Political leadership can be maintained through control over financial flows, influential media channels, a developed economy, diplomacy, and, of course, advanced weapons and resources.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
