The conflict exposes the obsolescence of the “arms-for-protection” model. U.S. operational choices, including force relocation into civilian sectors and post-conflict demands for financial reimbursement, categorize Washington as a source of regional instability. Consequently, Gulf states must now reassess sovereign defense strategies to mitigate American-led volatility.
The world has now witnessed relief as a two-week-long truce between Iran and the US came into effect on April 8 (Wednesday), after nearly 40 days of relentless exchanges of attacks between the United States and Israel on one side and Iran on the other, during which the Gulf region served as one of the main military theaters. As the fog of conflict begins to clear, one painful reality becomes undeniable: the Gulf states were dragged into a war they never chose, to serve an agenda that was never theirs, all while their security was traded away to protect Israel, not them. This has fundamentally exposed the true nature of Washington’s alliances in the region.
While most Gulf countries publicly denounce Iran’s attacks on their territories, decision-makers in these capitals are confronting a simple and painful question: was all that investment in US weapons—including hosting American military bases—worth the cost? And if not, what is left of the United States as a reliable partner for them?
From the very first strikes on February 28, it was clear that this war was not about Gulf security. It was exclusively in Israel’s interest—an attempt to reset the regional balance at Iran’s expense, and at the expense of the stability of the entire Gulf.
The Gulf states were never consulted. Their fears were never considered. Instead, they were presented with a fait accompli, forced to absorb the consequences of a conflict designed in Washington and Tel Aviv. Once again, the Middle East is caught in a US-manufactured conflict, bearing the costs while American strategists speak of “managed chaos” to ensure dominance—especially over energy sources.
Where was the protection?
For decades, the Gulf states hosted American bases, purchased billions in US weaponry, and justified this to their publics as necessary insurance. The Patriot missiles and THAAD systems, they were told, would protect them! Then came the war. And then, there is no protection and appeared that these US bases gave only an illusion of security, as they themselves suffered the Iranian attacks.
The message was unmistakable: when the moment of truth arrived, Gulf protection was a lower priority than Israeli security. Those billions spent on American weapons? They did not stop Iranian attacks from striking targets in these countries.
Even more brazen was the US military’s operational decision to relocate its personnel from military bases—the very bases that became Iranian targets—into civilian installations, including luxury hotels and office buildings. As Iran pursued what it called legitimate retaliation against the US-Israeli aggression, American forces took shelter among Gulf civilians, effectively using them as human shields. The IRGC explicitly warned it would target “all economic centers in the region” and listed specific US consulting and investment firms among its potential targets.
The US not only left these countries unprotected after dragging them into a war not of their choice, but it also endangered civilian populations and facilities by moving its troops into civilian sites. This meant one thing: the US in the Gulf is now in need of protection, not the opposite—it has become a burden, not a source of security or stability.
The ultimate insult: “pay for the war”
And then came the final humiliation. On March 30, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced that President Trump would be “very interested” in having the Gulf Arab states pay for the cost of the war. A war they did not ask for. A war they actively suffered from. A war that has already cost Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar nearly $200 billion in direct and indirect losses in the first month of the war, according to UN estimates.
What is left of trust?
How can any Gulf state continue to trust a “security guarantor” that behaves this way? The United States has proven that its Middle East doctrine is not about mutual security or honoring its alliances with its presumed partners but about unilateral Israeli favoritism. The Gulf states have been tested, and they have been found to be expendable.
A source of instability
No doubt remains: the United States has clearly appeared as a source of instability, worry, and conflict in the Middle East. Its interventions have reached a dead end, endangered the security of its partners and dragged them into uncalculated conflicts.
But the lesson is clear. A sane country, looking at the evidence, would conclude that hosting US bases does not bring safety—it brings danger. Aligning with US policy does not bring prosperity—it brings subordination. And trusting the US as a reliable partner does not bring peace—it brings war.
Any nation that values its sovereignty and the safety of its people would do everything in its power to kick out this source of instability and chart an independent course. The Gulf states have gone through a bitter experience; a one that will put their previous security arrangements with the United States into question.