Gulf Allies Press U.S. to Intensify Iran Campaign as Regional Stakes Escalate

By Rosemary

Key Gulf allies of the United States, led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are urging Donald Trump to press ahead with the ongoing military campaign against Iran, arguing that the current level of pressure has not sufficiently weakened Tehran’s leadership or military capabilities, according to officials familiar with high-level discussions.

The push reflects a notable shift from earlier unease among regional partners at the outset of the conflict. At that time, several Gulf governments privately expressed frustration over what they described as inadequate consultation by Washington and concerns that the military operation could destabilize the broader Middle East. Now, however, some of those same governments are signaling that the conflict presents a rare strategic opening to fundamentally reshape Iran’s role in the region.

Officials from Kuwait and Bahrain, alongside their Saudi and Emirati counterparts, have conveyed in private communications that they would prefer the campaign continue until there is either a substantial transformation in Iranian leadership or a decisive shift in Tehran’s regional conduct. These discussions have largely taken place behind closed doors, with participants speaking candidly under conditions of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter.

The evolving stance among Gulf nations comes as the conflict enters a critical phase, with no clear resolution in sight and mounting human and economic costs. More than 3,000 people have been killed across the region, and the war has sent shockwaves through global markets, particularly energy sectors reliant on stable flows from the Persian Gulf.

Despite these risks, Trump has increasingly projected confidence that the United States enjoys firm backing from its Middle Eastern partners. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, he emphasized what he described as a unified regional response, citing Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, and Bahrain as actively supporting efforts to counter Iran’s actions.

While these nations host U.S. military installations that have been instrumental in launching strikes, they have so far stopped short of directly participating in offensive operations. Their involvement has instead centered on logistical support and defensive measures, even as internal debates continue over whether to escalate their role.

Differences remain within the Gulf bloc. According to one regional diplomat, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are leading calls for sustained or increased military pressure, with the UAE emerging as one of the most assertive voices. Emirati officials have reportedly advocated for the possibility of a ground offensive, a position that has also found some support in Kuwait and Bahrain.

The UAE’s position has hardened in part due to the scale of retaliatory attacks it has faced, including thousands of missile and drone strikes attributed to Iran. These attacks have raised concerns about national security and threatened the country’s carefully cultivated reputation as a stable hub for global business and tourism.

By contrast, Oman and Qatar have continued to favor diplomatic engagement, reflecting their longstanding roles as intermediaries between Iran and Western powers. These countries have advocated for de-escalation and a negotiated settlement, warning of the long-term consequences of an expanded conflict.

Saudi officials, while supporting continued pressure, have outlined clear conditions for any eventual resolution. They argue that a lasting agreement must eliminate Iran’s nuclear ambitions, dismantle its ballistic missile capabilities, and end its support for proxy groups across the region. Additionally, Riyadh has stressed the need to ensure the uninterrupted operation of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical artery through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply flowed prior to the conflict.

Achieving these objectives, Saudi leaders contend, would require either a fundamental shift in Iran’s governing system—established after the 1979 Islamic Revolution—or its complete transformation.

Senior Emirati officials have echoed this hardline stance in increasingly direct terms. Noura Al Kaabi, a minister of state at the UAE’s Foreign Ministry, publicly criticized Iran’s actions, arguing that a government willing to target civilian areas, disrupt global trade, and support armed proxies cannot remain a tolerated force in the region. She emphasized the need for guarantees that such threats will not recur.

In Washington, the administration has offered limited public detail about its consultations with Gulf partners. However, Marco Rubio reinforced the alignment between the United States and its regional allies, describing Iran as a destabilizing force whose ambitions, particularly regarding nuclear weapons, are widely opposed by neighboring states.

At the same time, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has reportedly conveyed to U.S. officials that further weakening Iran’s military and political structure would serve the long-term security interests of the Gulf. Nonetheless, Saudi leaders remain acutely aware of the risks posed by prolonged conflict, particularly the potential for Iranian strikes on critical energy infrastructure that underpins the kingdom’s economy.

Trump has repeatedly highlighted Gulf support as a cornerstone of his administration’s approach, contrasting it with what he portrays as limited engagement from some NATO allies. He has publicly praised the Gulf states for their resolve and alignment with U.S. objectives, while acknowledging that initial reactions to the conflict were more cautious.

Questions persist, however, about whether Gulf nations will transition from support roles to direct military participation. Strategic considerations, including the complexity of coordinating multinational air operations and the risks of friendly fire, have weighed heavily on decision-making. Early in the conflict, several U.S. aircraft were mistakenly downed by allied defenses during intense aerial engagements, underscoring the dangers of a crowded battlespace.

Additional complications stem from diplomatic dynamics. Only the UAE and Bahrain maintain formal relations with Israel, a factor that influences the willingness and ability of Gulf states to engage more directly in a conflict involving Israeli forces.

Iran, for its part, has issued stark warnings, threatening to target critical infrastructure across neighboring countries—including desalination facilities essential for drinking water—if the United States escalates further or follows through on threats to strike Iranian energy assets.

Analysts note that uncertainty over U.S. objectives and the ultimate endgame continues to shape regional calculations. While some Gulf states are prepared to support a prolonged campaign, others remain cautious, particularly in the absence of clear assurances that military action will deliver a decisive and lasting outcome.

As the conflict intensifies, the decisions made in Washington and across Gulf capitals are likely to have far-reaching implications—not only for regional security but also for global energy markets and geopolitical stability.