Why the Gulf fears Israel’s ‘day after’ in Iran
Why the Gulf fears Israel’s ‘day after’ in Iran
Despite Iran’s missile and drone attacks on all Gulf states, the region’s wealthiest nations and their formidable military forces have maintained a defensive stance. Analysts had speculated for weeks about the impending strike by the US and Israel, yet the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) remained unprepared for the scale of the retaliation.
Iran’s leadership had vowed to unleash devastation, but the GCC states were still reluctant to escalate. In the aftermath, both sides fulfilled their threats: the US and Israel initiated the conflict, while Iran broadened it by targeting civilian infrastructure and installations across the GCC.
Strategic Divergence Between Israel and the GCC
The GCC’s reluctance to act decisively stems from their belief that the war’s outcome will not alter their strategic priorities. Although Iran’s attacks have intensified, their calculations remain consistent with pre-war assessments. They may resent the aggression, but they see little alternative to preserving stability, even if it means enduring further damage.
Israel and the Gulf states hold opposing visions for a postwar Iran. The GCC favors a swift resolution with minimal disruption, whereas Israel seeks prolonged conflict and is willing to tolerate chaos to weaken Iran’s regional influence. This fundamental difference in objectives explains the GCC’s defensive posture and Israel’s relentless pursuit of destabilisation.
Common Outcomes of the Conflict
Two scenarios dominate the Gulf’s strategic thinking. First, they anticipate a regime shift in Iran, hoping to replace its leadership with a version that aligns more closely with their interests. Second, they foresee ongoing instability, with Iran continuing its attacks and the US mediating between warring factions.
Regardless of whether Iran’s government collapses, the GCC remains apprehensive about Israel’s regional ambitions. They fear that the conflict will embolden Israeli expansionism and create opportunities for the country to extend its reach into Gulf territories. This concern has driven their efforts to limit the war’s impact and maintain the status quo.
The Imperative for Stability
The GCC’s preferred outcome is a rapid resolution through the removal of Iran’s senior leadership. They prioritize restoring order, as their domestic stability hinges on avoiding further upheaval. For them, the success of the current leadership is secondary to the goal of curbing Iran’s regional initiatives.
However, the path to this goal is fraught with obstacles. Decapitation alone does not satisfy the US or Israel’s ambitions. President Donald Trump
bragged
that the US has eliminated not only current Iranian figures but also potential successors, ensuring sustained pressure on the regime.
The US’s likely endgame involves a comprehensive agreement to dismantle Iran’s nuclear programme and ballistic missile capabilities. Yet, the Iranians have become more resistant, having already demonstrated the effectiveness of their missile arsenal in the current conflict. Israel, meanwhile, remains a critical obstacle to this vision, pursuing a strategy of cumulative destabilisation to erode Iran’s capacity to challenge its adversaries.
The Path to Prolonged Conflict
The second possible outcome is not a clear “day after” but the continuation of hostilities in a slow-burn form. Similar to Gaza, ceasefires may be declared, yet tensions will persist, with intermittent clashes and escalating tit-for-tat exchanges between Israel, the US, and Iran.
This scenario would see Iran’s leadership reshuffled due to the toll of the conflict, but its grand strategy of regional resistance would endure. The GCC states, meanwhile, would continue their efforts to temper the situation, even as Iran’s attacks persist, pushing the US toward a ceasefire. Both sides, however, are locked in a cycle of retaliation, ensuring the conflict remains unresolved for the foreseeable future.
