The Gulf Stays Out Amid Rising Tensions in the Iran War

The war in Iran has entered its fifth week and shows no sign of slowing. Since the start of the conflict, Tehran has fired more than 5,000 missiles and drones at targets in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, killing 27 people across the Gulf and injuring at least 274 others. Regional tensions continue to escalate. The United States recently deployed 2,500 Marines and 2,500 sailors to the region, bringing its troop presence to over 50,000, around 10,000 above its usual level. Meanwhile, Israel estimates that several more weeks of sustained military operations against Iran will be required to achieve its objectives.

Despite regional escalation, Gulf states have remained calibrated and restrained. The GCC has issued a unified message condemning the missile strikes as violations of international law and calling for their immediate cessation. At the same time, the Gulf has avoided direct retaliation against Tehran. This restraint is not a function of incapacity. The Gulf states possess the military and intelligence capabilities to effectively strike Iranian targets. Rather, their posture reflects a strategic policy choice shaped by a preference for containing the conflict and accelerating its resolution.

This restraint is notable in the context of active military conflict. Governments tend to face intense pressure to respond, driven by concerns that delay increases vulnerability. Under conditions of incomplete or ambiguous intelligence, decision-makers often default to worst-case assumptions, increasing the likelihood of rapid escalation. The GCC states have thus far resisted these dynamics.

Gulf restraint, however, does not equate to passivity. Even before the U.S.-Israeli strikes on February 28, senior Qatari leadership had emphasized the importance of strengthening collective Gulf security coordination and advancing more structured regional security frameworks. After the war broke out, Saudi Arabia signaled that all military options were on the table if the conflict escalated. At the same time, Riyadh’s lack of military action appears to be a calculated signal to Tehran that it is unlikely to participate in a regional conflict that primarily advances Israel’s security prerogatives. For the GCC, restraint informed by calibrated diplomacy, de-escalation approaches, and strategic signaling serves as an effective mechanism for containing escalation and preserving space for conflict resolution.

Managing Escalation Without Direct Engagement

Over the past month, the GCC’s strategy has been to manage escalation pressures without risking direct engagement in the conflict. Even before the invasion began, GCC leaders sought to distance their states from the war, emphasizing that the consequences would be dire for regional security and the broader international community.

At the same time, the Gulf states have remained actively engaged with key international actors, preserving their ability to coordinate diplomatically in response to the crisis. The GCC also retains the capacity to exert significant economic pressure on Iran by curtailing trade and financial flows and limiting avenues for sanctions evasion. Oman and Qatar, long at the forefront of mediation between Iran and the United States, have repeatedly pressed for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict. The central message is clear: the Gulf states are reluctant to commit their national capabilities and resources to support a large-scale campaign in Iran without a clear pathway to an immediate resolution.

The conflict has also provided an impetus for strengthening intra-Gulf solidarity and cooperation. For the first time since the Arab Spring, the GCC is planning common security and defence responses, signaling that it will not accept sustained missile and drone strikes as a new status quo. This approach reflects policy discipline and decision maturity, with restraint actively deployed as a tool for escalation management.

Signaling Stability in a Volatile Environment

Credible signaling is a vital tool underpinning the GCC’s policy of strategic restraint. Throughout the war, Gulf states have sought to preserve their position as reliable energy partners by mitigating disruptions to the Strait of Hormuz and rerouting energy exports through alternative channels. Efforts to maintain export continuity even amid armed attacks and shipping disruptions highlights the region’s economic resilience and its intent to prevent increased panic in global markets.

The GCC’s communications throughout the conflict have been principled and measured. Regional leaders have continuously underscored that Iran’s attacks are a clear violation of international law, while making clear their reluctance to directly engage in the conflict. These controlled messages send clear signals to the Iranian government that regime change is not part of the GCC’s short-term objectives.

On the diplomatic front, GCC states continue to call for a diplomatic resolution to the crisis in the region. Oman continues to leverage their roles as mediators to advance dialogue and discourage further escalation by both the United States and Iran. Qatar and Saudi Arabia sustained their diplomatic engagement within existing mediation channels.

Strategic Restraint as a Form of Power

For the GCC, strategic restraint functions as a form of power through which regional dynamics can be shaped. By refusing to retaliate against Iranian attacks, Gulf states weaken the legal arguments that underpin Iran’s case at the United Nations Security Council. Under the UN Charter, states may lawfully engage in preventive self-defense in case of an imminent armed attack. Yet Iranian claims for preemptive self-defense have become increasingly hollow. This is not only because GCC states have continuously sought a diplomatic resolution, but also because no state can justify preventive self-defense against an adversary that does not retaliate even when attacked.

By prioritizing restraint over immediate direct retaliation, the GCC states have positioned themselves as responsible actors committed to ensuring regional stability, aiming to end the conflict rather than increasing the number of states involved in the cycle of attacks and counter-attacks. Strategic restraint is neither a sign of military inferiority nor a form of appeasement. It is a deliberate instrument that strengthens international standing and builds support from the international community. Through this approach, the Gulf states remain anchors of stability, navigating even the most volatile regional environments with calibrated policy.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Gulf International Forum.