One of the most dangerous ideas in today’s Middle East is the claim that Gulf states must choose between Iran and Israel. This framing is politically simple, but strategically misleading.

The Gulf’s central interest is neither to defend Iran nor to serve Israel’s regional agenda. Its real interest is to prevent the region from becoming a battlefield.

Any confrontation involving Iran, Israel and the United States immediately affects Gulf airspace, shipping lanes, energy infrastructure, investment confidence and domestic stability.

In June 2025, when Israel attacked Iran, the conflict spilled over. In September, an Israeli air strike targeted Doha. This was not a separate episode but a continuation of the same campaign.

Qatar has built much of its foreign policy around mediation, dialogue and de-escalation, yet even this posture did not shield it from the consequences of confrontation.

Gulf states recognize Iran as a threat, but that does not mean accepting war as a strategy. Their policy must combine firmness with communication: oppose coercion but keep channels open to prevent miscalculation.

Shared concerns with Israel do not mean identical interests. Israel may see escalation as a way to restore deterrence, but for the Gulf, escalation produces immediate costs: disrupted maritime routes, higher insurance costs, exposed energy facilities and political pressure.

Maritime security is a national necessity for the Gulf. The Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf of Oman and Bab al-Mandab are lifelines for energy exports, food imports and global trade.

The Gulf’s answer should be strategic autonomy, not passive neutrality. This means resisting Iranian coercion without becoming an extension of Israeli escalation.

Ultimately, the Gulf needs to choose whether to become a theater for permanent war or an architect of regional stability. The strongest position is not to choose between Iran and Israel, but to choose itself: its security, sovereignty, economic future and role as a center of balance.

Source: www.aljazeera.com