Choosing between two disparate regional visions

Iran's vision promises chaos; the Gulf vision promises stability. Going forward, the choices made by states and non-state actors will be highly consequential.

Choosing between two disparate regional visions

From the earliest hours of the conflict, the Gulf found itself drawn into the very heart of the confrontation. As war erupted between the United States, Israel, and Iran, Iranian missiles and drones struck Gulf states.

Gulf tensions with Iran aren't new. They began nearly half a century ago and gradually expanded into numerous Arab arenas through a range of military, security, and political instruments.

In Iraq, after the United States overthrew Saddam Hussein’s regime and dismantled the institutions of the state in 2003, Iran filled the power vacuum by backing militias and ultimately establishing a new regional security order. Power was dispersed among multiple centres, but all threads ultimately led back to Tehran.

Iran also used its war against the Islamic State (IS) to tighten control over the Arab eastern front. Qasem Soleimani personally oversaw this campaign and strengthened Iran's transnational network of influence linking Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and beyond. This so-called 'axis of resistance' was capable of swift movement and of striking Iran’s adversaries across several arenas, including the Gulf states.

Iran's long-standing alliance with Syria was one that began early in the life of Khomeini’s revolution with Hafez al-Assad. It endured under Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and became further entrenched through the relationship with Hafez's son, Bashar.

When anti-government protests erupted in Syria in 2011, Iran quickly intervened to prop up the regime. It sent advisers and fighters and deployed 'Axis' militias. This—along with support from Russia—helped tip the scales of the conflict in Assad’s favour.

Gulf countries offer a model that encourages stability in the face of disorder, armies in the face of militias, and states in the face of fragmentation.

In Yemen, the same pattern reappeared. Political and military backing for the Houthis, in money, weapons, and training, enabled the group to seize vast territories and create a new reality on the borders of the Gulf states—one marked by instability and threat. That support did not remain confined to Yemen.

It reverberated across the wider region through repeated attacks and direct threats to maritime routes, particularly the Bab el-Mandab Strait—a vital artery of global trade and a key link in navigation through Egypt's Suez Canal. Iran also inserted itself in other regional states by backing factions in North Africa and Palestine, as well as setting up sleeper cells in the Gulf.

Different approach

Whereas Iran's approach towards the region aims to export its revolution, back non-state actors, and foster extremism, chaos, and poverty, the Gulf states' approach has been one of financial investment and political and diplomatic backing. They offered a model of stability in the face of disorder, armies in the face of militias, and states in the face of fragmentation.

The region now stands on the precipice of choosing between two starkly different visions for the future: one promising chaos, the other stability. The choices made by states and non-state actors going forward will be extremely consequential. 

font change