For exactly one month, the Gulf monarchies have been living under a level of strategic tension rarely seen since the major regional crises of the second half of the 20th century. The Israeli strike against Qatar last September had already sent a shockwave through the petro-monarchies, which were beginning to realize that the American security umbrella might not last forever. In the face of American and Israeli bombardments, Iran's targeted and repeated retaliatory strikes have further eroded the trust of several of Washington's strategic partners in the region. Military bases, energy infrastructure, logistics hubs: everything symbolizing alignment with the Western security architecture has become a prime target for Tehran.
Iran did not strike at random. It targeted states for what they represent. The United Arab Emirates, for their strategic rapprochement with Israel since the Abraham Accords. Saudi Arabia, for its pivotal role in the global energy system and its security alignment with Washington. Qatar, finally, for hosting the Al-Udeid airbase, the nerve center of American operations in the region. Yet, behind this apparent dispersion of strikes lies a coherent strategy.
Striking Broadly to Compel the Gulf Monarchies to Influence the United States
Many believed that the Iranian strategy was based on a risky gamble: widening the theater of confrontation to force the Gulf monarchies to abandon their balancing posture. By striking multiple states simultaneously, Tehran sought to pressure both the United States and Israel into ending the war. But how could Gulf monarchies, which have always maintained pragmatic relations with all their neighbors—especially when they are 100 to 150 times smaller, such as the Emirates or Qatar—suddenly turn against a power as significant as Iran?
So far, fortunately, an escalatory spiral has not materialized. Despite enduring attacks, the Gulf monarchies have displayed remarkable restraint. There has been no direct military response, no large-scale retaliation. This posture has surprised observers and sometimes drawn criticism, but it reflects a lucid assessment of the balance of power. These states understand that entering an open conflict would immediately expose them to far more devastating strikes, particularly against their vital energy infrastructure. They also know that their internal stability depends precisely on avoiding such a scenario. In other words, they refuse to fall into the Iranian trap.
The Qatari Case: Strategic Calm and the Logic of Mutual Preservation
Amidst this chaotic period, Qatar has experienced a phase of relative calm over the past week, although it was struck again recently in response to Israeli and American attacks targeting Iranian museums and historical sites. While other monarchies remain under pressure, Doha continues to play a moderating role. This is no coincidence. It is a strategic choice on both sides.
Qatar and Iran share the world's largest gas field, known as the North Field on the Qatari side and South Pars on the Iranian side. This structural interdependence imposes a degree of rationality that even an intense conflict cannot entirely erase. Prolonged strikes, direct escalation, long-term destabilization: none of these scenarios serve the interests of either country.
Tehran is not acting irrationally; it is preserving a channel. Not out of weakness, but out of calculation. Keeping Doha removed from direct confrontation means preserving a diplomatic exit ramp. It means retaining an actor capable of speaking to all parties, including Washington. True to its tradition, Qatar is already positioning itself as a potential mediator. In such a volatile region, it remains one of the few actors capable of engaging simultaneously with the United States, certain non-state actors, and Iran. Today, this capability has become a major strategic asset.
Toward a Regional Shift: Pressure on the Gulf and the Return of Mediation
The unfolding phase could mark a historic turning point in the regional balance of power. There is increasing talk of a gradual U.S. disengagement from the most intense phase of the bombardments, combined with a more indirect, calibrated regional involvement.
Two radically different trajectories are emerging. On one side, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have hinted that their restraint is not boundless and that they might choose to enter the conflict more directly, in various forms, to offset a potential American withdrawal and the limitations of a war that Donald Trump cannot sustain indefinitely without political cost, especially with the approach of the November midterm elections. The American president had promised his MAGA electorate an end to "forever wars."
Fundamentally, this crisis reveals a profound transformation of the Gulf. Long perceived as a mere theater of proxy confrontations, it is now becoming a space of strategic arbitration.
On the other side lies the mediation option. Indirect discussions, routed through Pakistani channels, could open a fragile diplomatic sequence. It is here that the roles of Qatar and Oman once again become decisive.
Oman, historically discreet yet effective, has often served as a facilitator during the most sensitive moments between Tehran and Washington. Qatar, for its part, could provide a form of diplomatic "after-sales service": maintaining communication channels, securing commitments, and steering discussions toward a ceasefire. Ultimately, these two states could reap the primary strategic benefits of a de-escalation they have consistently championed.
Fundamentally, this crisis reveals a profound transformation of the Gulf. Long perceived as a mere theater of proxy confrontations, it is now becoming a space of strategic arbitration. Between war and mediation, alignment and autonomy, the Gulf monarchies are walking a narrow tightrope. And in this uncertain environment, those who manage to avert war while orchestrating peace may emerge stronger.
As Majed Al Ansari, spokesperson for the Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs, recently stated:
"Iran has been there for hundreds of years. Nobody is leaving. Total destruction is not even an option. We will continue to live side by side. We will always be neighbors and will find ways to coexist."
