A Fragile Alliance Reconsidered
Gulf leaders once welcomed Israel’s strength as a useful tool to confront a shared adversary, but their views have shifted dramatically. Since the war began in Gaza on October 7, the perception of Israel among Arab rulers has changed from a calculated partner to a source of uncontrollable volatility. Their enthusiasm for the Abraham Accords has eroded as the regional cost of Israel’s ambition has grown too high to ignore. The very power that once seemed protective has begun to feel unpredictable and dangerous. “He (Benjamin Netanyahu) appears to be beyond restraint – in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and now Iran,” said one Gulf official, reflecting a concern now quietly shared in multiple Gulf capitals.
The Illusion of Mutual Security
Gulf states once believed that normalizing ties with Israel would bolster their own security while maintaining distance from Tehran. This belief shaped their participation in the Abraham Accords, presented by Washington as a regional breakthrough. Trump administration officials envisioned the agreement as a foundation for regional order anchored by Israeli deterrence and American support. “One of the president’s key objectives is that the Abraham Accords be expanded, that more countries come into it,” said Steve Witkoff, the U.S. special envoy. These hopes have now been paused as regional leaders reconsider the risks of being closely linked to Israeli aggression.
From Confidence to Fear
The Israeli campaign against Iran shocked Gulf rulers, not only because of its scale, but because of what it revealed about Israel’s strategic reach. Israel’s actions confirmed its ability and willingness to strike anywhere, including deep inside sovereign territory without regional consultation. The balance of power no longer feels stable to those who once celebrated Israel’s capabilities as a buffer. “Israel has unchecked power in the region and that is bad news for the global order,” said Mohammed Baharoon, Director-General of B’huth, a policy institute in the United Arab Emirates. The concern is no longer what Israel might do to Iran, but what it might do next and to whom.
A Tactical Pivot to Tehran
Instead of confronting Tehran, Gulf countries have turned to it, seeking calm through discreet diplomacy and strategic communication channels. While they once demanded that Israel or the United States launch strikes on Iranian sites, they now quietly pursue calm through intermediaries. This shift has not emerged from strength or confidence, but from fear of what chaos another war could unleash on their economies. “The Saudis are now against a military strike on Iran… It also no longer supports regime change,” explained Yasmine Farouk of the International Crisis Group. Their reversal exposes a pattern of nervous calculation, not one grounded in principle or long-term stability.
Contradictions Behind Closed Doors
While Gulf states publicly condemned Israel’s airstrikes on Iran, their private comments revealed a different reality filled with relief and self-interest. Some officials expressed hope that Israel may have succeeded in weakening Iran’s nuclear capabilities, though they feared saying so openly. “Israel is cleaning up the neighbourhood for us. You have to be a little bit grateful,” admitted one Gulf official during a private conversation. This contradiction shows that Gulf leaders wish to benefit from Israeli actions without taking responsibility for the resulting instability. They desire protection without entanglement and influence without the burden of confrontation.
Strategic Anxiety Among Allies
Israel’s military advantage no longer comforts Gulf states who now worry if they could be the next target in a regional provocation. With major energy and financial assets vulnerable to future strikes, regional rulers wonder if Israeli power could one day turn inward. “What would stop them attacking Qatar, or Qatari interests – for example, in the gas fields it shares with Iran?” asked Baharoon, illustrating the growing paranoia. These questions reveal unease that Israel acts independently of any strategic dialogue or regional restraint. What once was welcomed as deterrence now breeds mistrust among those who helped shape this alliance.
A Passive Bloc in a Volatile Region
Despite their wealth and position, Gulf monarchies remain dependent on outside actors to contain the very instability they helped stir. As Israeli jets moved toward Tehran, it was Washington—not Riyadh—that urged caution and negotiated restraint with Israel and Iran. “Israel just became a victim of its own success,” remarked Congressman Zach Nunn of Iowa, following meetings in the Gulf. Gulf rulers stand on the sidelines of a contest they once embraced, now afraid they may be caught in its path. Their cautious silence, diplomatic maneuvering, and private pleading reveal a bloc suspended between the pressures of conflict and the comforts of detachment.
Power Without Restraint Leaves Allies Powerless
The Gulf states once placed their trust in an alliance with Israel that promised shared strength, regional balance, and strategic clarity. Today, that trust has deteriorated into quiet alarm as Israeli force replaces collaboration with unilateral decisions that disregard consequences. Gulf leaders have neither the courage to oppose Israel openly nor the confidence to guide the region without external intervention. Their dependence on Washington, combined with their fear of Israeli escalation, has left them exposed in a region they sought to control. They helped shape this reality, and now they remain trapped within it—watching, waiting, and hoping they are not next.
