Arab states can no longer pretend Tehran’s threat is manageable
For decades, a dangerous illusion governed the Persian Gulf. Arab capitals knew the Islamic Republic was hostile. Yet, they believed the threat could be managed.
For decades, a dangerous illusion governed the Persian Gulf. Arab capitals knew the Islamic Republic was hostile. Yet, they believed the threat could be managed.
They treated Tehran’s subversion as a chronic illness, not a fatal one. The Arab states of the Persian Gulf opted for quiet diplomacy. Tehran opted for proxies and intimidation. This tense balance was always a house of cards.
That house has collapsed.
The recent war between the United States, Israel, and the Islamic Republic changed everything. It did more than degrade Iran’s military. It shattered a long diplomatic illusion. The regime is not just a disruptive actor. It is a direct existential threat. Specifically, it threatens the economic foundations and long-term stability of the Arab states of the Persian Gulf.
Look closely at the targets the regime chose. Before the war, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar all signaled a desire for peace. Some lobbied against escalation. Others kept direct lines open to Tehran. Qatar even acted as a mediator.
None of it mattered. Iranian missiles still struck Qatari LNG infrastructure. They targeted Riyadh, the Saudi capital. The United Arab Emirates, historically a vital economic lifeline for Iran, absorbed the most brutal strikes on its primary commercial hubs.
This was a calculated message. Goodwill is no shield when your economic success is the actual target. Tehran does not just view the Arab states of the Persian Gulf as geopolitical rivals. It views their development as an existential threat to its own legitimacy.
For decades, the regime blamed its economic misery on outside enemies. It preached permanent revolution and resistance. Yet, just across the water, the Arab states of the Persian Gulf chose a different path. They built world-class infrastructure, trade, and global growth.
This contrast is terrifying to the Islamic Republic. Ordinary Iranians look across the Persian Gulf and ask a dangerous question: Why does our country, with far greater natural resources, deliver nothing but poverty?
Tehran has no answer. It cannot match the economic model of its neighbors, so it resorts to economic vandalism. If the regime cannot build prosperity at home, it must destroy it next door to level the playing field.
This reality explains why the conflict has evolved beyond mere proxy warfare. The Arab states of the Persian Gulf are accustomed to dealing with asymmetric threats. They have managed Iranian-backed groups like Hezbollah, Iraqi militias, and the Houthis for years.
The current crisis targets something deeper. It is not a standard security dispute. It is a direct assault on the economic model of the Arab states of the Persian Gulf.
Look at the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Tehran views this vital waterway as a geopolitical jugular. The regime knows that prosperity in the Persian Gulf relies on global investor confidence, open trade, and energy exports. By shutting the Strait, Tehran is holding the entire region's future hostage. If the Islamic Republic cannot climb out of its own economic grave, it will drag its neighbors down into it.
The old playbook is broken. De-escalation, mediation, and managed coexistence are no longer viable strategies. They hold diplomatic utility, but they cannot replace a core security doctrine. The regime proved it will eagerly strike the very neighbors who tried to contain the flames.
The Arab states of the Persian Gulf are confronting a reality they long sought to defer. The Islamic Republic is not a wild animal that can be tamed or managed indefinitely. It is a systemic threat. History shows that treating an expansionist power as a mere management problem only invites more aggressive escalation.
This shift does not require a reckless rush to war. It does mean the Arab states of the Persian Gulf can no longer remain passive observers while others carry the burden. The United States and Israel have already initiated a confrontation. The implications extend far beyond the regime's nuclear ambitions. Leaving this conflict unfinished is highly dangerous. It merely hands Tehran a life support system, giving it time to recover, rebuild, and repeat its destructive cycles.
A deeper transformation is also underway. The strategic interests of key Arab states of the Persian Gulf now directly align with the aspirations of the Iranian people. The average Iranian derives no benefit from the regime’s foreign adventures. Instead, citizens pay the ultimate price through brutal domestic repression, systemic corruption, and engineered economic ruin. The regime behaves like an absentee landlord, burning its own house down for insurance money to fund foreign militias.
By now, the pattern is undeniable. The Islamic Republic’s hostility is not a temporary phase. It stems from a profound systemic insecurity. A neighborhood defined by stability, economic growth, and global integration acts as a mirror. It exposes the regime’s self-inflicted failures. Tehran simply cannot survive the comparison. The old assumptions are officially dead.
The Arab states of the Persian Gulf are not dealing with a conventional rival. They are facing an existential adversary. This adversary views their prosperity and international alignments as an active threat to its survival.
Neutrality is no longer a shield. The Arab states of the Persian Gulf cannot afford to be passive spectators while their future is decided by others. True security will not come from managing the threat from a distance. It will come from actively building a region where totalitarian vandalism can no longer sabotage human progress.
To achieve this, the Arab states of the Persian Gulf can mobilize three vital partners. The first is the Iranian people, who are eager to liberate themselves from their oppressors. The second is Israel, which faces the exact same existential threat but possesses advanced capabilities to directly confront the regime. The third is the United States, whose strategic support remains entirely irreplaceable.
The Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf should actively coordinate with this triad, first behind the scenes and then openly. Together, they can finally bring down the Islamist regime in Tehran. Only after the Iranian people establish a representative government can the region breathe and find a true partner for peace, regional security, and shared prosperity in Iran.
“The Strait of Hormuz is a God-given treasure, like other mines and reserves placed at Iran’s disposal,” said Hossein Ali Hajideligani, a member of Iran parliament’s presiding board.
The Strait of Hormuz is a critical route for the digital economy, with several undersea fiber-optic cables running across the seabed and linking India and Southeast Asia to Europe through the Persian Gulf states and Egypt.
Iran had previously warned that submarine cables in the Strait of Hormuz were a vulnerable point for the region’s digital economy, raising concerns about potential attacks on critical infrastructure.
Last week, IRGC-linked media called for Iran to generate revenue from undersea internet cables passing through the Strait of Hormuz, framing the waterway not only as an energy and shipping chokepoint but also as a digital pressure point.
Hajieligani said Iran should also impose fees on ships passing through the waterway, citing guidance he attributed to Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei’s messages.
He also called for an end to negotiations with the United States, saying Washington had “miscalculated” and was using the process to buy time rather than accept what he called Iran’s “absolute right.”
He said the US was the one that sought a ceasefire and alleged that Washington was after buying time for domestic political purposes.
Abbas Araghchi made the remarks in response to comments by the Emirati representative and added that he had avoided naming the UAE in his main speech “for the sake of unity.”
“But the truth is that the UAE was directly involved in the aggression against my country,” Araghchi said. “When the attacks started, they didn't even issue a condemnation.”
He accused Abu Dhabi of providing bases, airspace, territory, intelligence and other facilities to the United States and Israel during the attacks.
Araghchi said Iran had not attacked the UAE, but had targeted US military bases and facilities on Emirati soil.
He urged the UAE to reconsider its policy toward Iran, saying neither the US military presence nor ties with Israel had protected it.
His remarks came against the backdrop of the war involving Iran, the United States and Israel, during which Tehran said it targeted US military positions in response to attacks on Iran.
They also followed reports that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had visited Abu Dhabi during the war and that Israel had provided the UAE with military equipment. The UAE rejected reports of the visit.
Araghchi cited the reports in his remarks, saying the UAE had become “an active partner in this aggression.”
The office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday he had made a secret visit to the United Arab Emirates during the US-Israeli war with Iran earlier this year and met UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed.
