The Gulf does not have to choose Iran or Israel

Automatic alignment with Israel against Iran is strategically risky. It reduces the Gulf to a support base for another actor’s security agenda and ignores the Palestinian question, which remains central to the legitimacy of any regional order and stability.

Diplomacy and strategic autonomy

When faced with repeated escalation, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain have pursued distinct foreign policy tracks, sometimes complementary, sometimes divergent. Qatar’s mediation posture has differed sharply from the UAE’s harder line on Iran. Oman has maintained quiet channels with Tehran that others have not.

Yet the Gulf countries have a clear common interest in regional security and stability.

Freedom of navigation is central to it. For the Gulf, maritime security is not an abstract legal principle or a Western slogan. It is a national necessity. The Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf of Oman, Bab al-Mandeb and other passages are lifelines for energy exports, food imports, industrial production and global trade.

Any attempt to weaponise these routes threatens the entire Gulf system: oil and gas flows, economic diversification, supply chains, investor confidence and the credibility of Gulf states as stable global hubs.

However, maritime security cannot be protected by military power alone. The Gulf needs crisis communication, early-warning systems, intelligence sharing, regional maritime coordination, cyber-resilience and diplomatic mechanisms that reduce miscalculation.

The Strait of Hormuz illustrates a larger point: Geography makes isolation impossible. Iran cannot be removed, Israel cannot be ignored, the US remains central to Gulf defence, China is economically significant and Europe has energy and maritime interests. This environment requires a layered strategy that combines deterrence with diplomacy.

Mediation and backchannels are practical tools for preventing incidents from becoming wars. In a region where one missile, one naval encounter or one misread signal can trigger escalation, communication becomes strategic insurance.

The Gulf’s answer should be strategic autonomy, not passive neutrality. This means resisting Iranian coercion without becoming an extension of Israeli escalation, partnering with the US without outsourcing every security decision, engaging China economically without accepting dependency and preserving channels without compromising sovereignty.

Air defence, maritime surveillance, cyberprotection, food security, energy infrastructure and crisis diplomacy must become shared priorities. The Gulf cannot rely indefinitely on external actors to define its security future.

In the end, the Gulf needs to choose whether it wants to become a theatre for permanent war or an architect of regional stability.

Working towards stability is not a soft slogan. It is a strategic doctrine. It protects sovereignty, maritime lifelines, economic development and regional resilience. The Gulf’s strongest position is not to choose between Iran and Israel. It is to choose itself: its security, sovereignty, economic future and role as a centre of balance in a region too often pushed towards perpetual war.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.