Amid an unprecedented rise in Iranian attacks on vital facilities in the Gulf, regional countries are adopting a dual approach aimed at containing immediate risks while building long-term strategic guarantees. These moves come at a time when Gulf states have faced missile and drone attacks targeting civilian and critical infrastructure, prompting authorities to raise defensive readiness and activate emergency plans to ensure the continuity of essential services.
Abdulaziz bin Saqr, President of the Gulf Research Center, emphasizes that the regional scene is suffering from a state of "uncertainty" regarding U.S. decisions, complicating war calculations and leaving its paths open to multiple possibilities. He notes that U.S. statements about controlling the Strait of Hormuz lack legal basis, as international straits are not subject to sovereign fees except in limited cases like the Suez Canal and Panama Canal, making any attempt to impose fees in Hormuz a clear violation of international law.
Details of the Situation
The significance of the Strait of Hormuz extends beyond being a transit point for oil; it is a hub governing energy flows to Asia, with the majority of Gulf exports directed towards China, Japan, South Korea, and India. Any party that controls this route gains significant economic and geopolitical leverage. Despite this strategic weight, Gulf states do not view a ceasefire as a final solution but rather as a first step paving the way for a broader negotiation process.
Bin Saqr asserts that Gulf countries, being the most affected party, seek to be an integral part of any upcoming settlement, focusing on a set of demands that include ensuring energy security and navigation, non-interference in internal affairs, and compensation for damages to infrastructure.
Context and Background
This vision aligns with the official Gulf positions expressed by the Secretary-General of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Jassem Al-Budaiwi, who called from the Security Council for immediate action to protect navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, warning of the repercussions of attacks on regional stability and the global economy. Amid these tensions, the Strait of Hormuz emerges as one of the most prominent points of confrontation, witnessing the detention of hundreds of ships within its waters amid Iranian threats to target vessels or impose conditions for their passage, exacerbating supply chain crises and raising shipping and insurance costs.
These pressures are seen as a negotiating card used by Tehran to influence the U.S. domestic front through energy prices, as well as to pressure European allies to engage more in managing the crisis. In response, Gulf states are working to activate strategic alternatives to bypass the Strait of Hormuz, including utilizing pipelines extending to the Red Sea, which allow for the export of millions of barrels daily without passing through the strait.
Consequences and Impact
Options for using floating stock in the seas are also emerging, as some Gulf countries possess a fleet of tankers capable of meeting urgent demands, providing a time margin to avoid any sudden supply bottlenecks. Bin Saqr raises the possibility of reviving old projects, such as pipelines crossing to the Mediterranean, including regional connectivity projects that could reshape the energy export map in the region and reduce reliance on threatened corridors.
However, he warns that these alternatives require time and investments, meaning that economic risks will remain in the short term, especially if the war continues for a longer period. Saqr identifies what he calls the "triple risk," which includes the continuation of Iranian offensive capabilities, the expansion of targeting to include vital facilities, in addition to the increasing use of low-cost, highly effective drones.
Impact on the Arab Region
Despite Gulf states possessing advanced air capabilities, exceeding hundreds of fighter jets, the nature of new threats, especially suicide drones, imposes operational challenges that require continuous development in air defense systems. Conversely, he believes that the continuation of U.S. and Israeli strikes inside Iran may push Tehran to expand the scope of its responses, justifying from its perspective the targeting of similar facilities in the Gulf, which threatens to escalate the conflict into a cycle of mutual escalation.
As internal pressures on Iran rise, Saqr hints at the possibility of a "pragmatic" approach emerging within Tehran that drives the search for a settlement, especially in light of the need to coexist with its regional environment and reduce the costs of ongoing confrontation. He concludes that the most likely path is a temporary ceasefire that opens the door to comprehensive negotiations, involving Gulf countries as a key party, aiming to reach security and economic arrangements that ensure long-term stability in the region.