During the conflict in Iran, nations across the Persian Gulf faced a wave of Iranian missile and drone strikes targeting airports, energy infrastructure, military bases, and hotels.
Consequently, analysts report a sense of frustration among regional officials after a preliminary agreement reached this week between the United States and Iran failed to include provisions restricting these weapons.
“They didn’t expect anything, but they’re still disappointed,” noted Hussein Ibish, a senior resident scholar at the Washington-based Arab Gulf States Institute.
Concerns intensified on Wednesday when President Trump stated during a G7 summit press conference in France that Iran should be permitted to possess certain ballistic missiles, noting that neighboring states maintain similar capabilities.
This stance contrasts sharply with earlier assertions made by Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the onset of the war. At that time, Mr. Rubio stated that U.S. operations were aimed at “eliminating the threat of Iran’s short-range ballistic missiles.”
“They’re not going to have these ballistic missiles and they’re not going to have drones to threaten us,” Mr. Rubio had declared, adding that the mission’s goal was to prevent Iran from using such weaponry to threaten regional neighbors, U.S. bases, and the American presence in the area.
Government representatives from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Bader Al-Saif, an assistant professor of history at Kuwait University, argued that the exclusion of missile and drone restrictions suggests the United States is not prioritizing the interests of its Gulf allies.
Mr. Al-Saif expressed confidence that Iran is already rebuilding its strategic capacities and will likely utilize the financial gains from the deal to expand its arsenal. The agreement, framed as a memorandum of understanding, allows the U.S. Treasury Department to issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil and petroleum derivatives.
Marc Sievers, a former senior American diplomat with extensive experience in the Middle East, suggested that without limits on Iran’s programs, Gulf nations may be forced to increase investments in air defense systems and pursue intensified diplomacy with the Islamic Republic.
“Those are the main options on the table,” Sievers noted.
Mr. Ibish added that Gulf governments may look toward South Korea and Ukraine for technical expertise in countering drones and missiles.
Furthermore, regional officials are increasingly questioning the reliability of the United States as a security guarantor, particularly following the Trump administration’s decision to ignore their warnings regarding the escalation of war with Iran.
“The question is how do they see Washington fitting into their national security doctrine,” Ibish said, suggesting that these nations are gradually considering a shift away from U.S. reliance if no reassurances are provided within the next year.
However, Mr. Ibish cautioned that finding a viable alternative security framework could take one to two decades, meaning Gulf countries must maintain close ties with the U.S. in the interim.
Also Read
- New bill would ban lawmakers, their families from betting on prediction markets
- Pakistan Condemns 17 Indian Projects on Indus River as ‘Hydro-Hegemony Tools’ Amid Treaty Crisis
- Residents return to war-ravaged southern Lebanon with hope and sorrow after the US-Iran deal
- China’s Agricultural Drones: A Quiet National Security Vulnerability In 2024, Emilian Kavalski and Claris Diaz highlighted in “Beyond TikTok – The National Security Risks of Chinese Agricultural Drones” that the U.S. national security discourse concerning foreign technologies had grown overly preoccupied with social media platforms, thereby diminishing focus on other critical foreign innovations, particularly those within the agricultural sector. Two years later, we revisit their perspectives.Image: MB-one via Wikimedia CommonsIn your 2024 article, you contended that TikTok’s data collection risks were exaggerated and that an excessive emphasis on them diverted attention from more significant Chinese technological threats, such as agricultural drones. Two years on and amid multiple TikTok ban cycles, has your stance evolved? Have security professionals redirected their attention to other concerns, or does media and social media still prevail in the discourse? Security professionals have notably increased their attention to supply chains, data infrastructure, unmanned systems, and dual-use technologies since the original article was written. However, public discourse continues to be drawn to social media due to its familiarity, emotional resonance, and ease of framing as a consumer privacy issue. Agricultural drones, conversely, operate quietly, functioning far from Washington and Silicon Valley, yet they collect data on land use, crop health, chemical inputs, yields, and production vulnerabilities. The original argument was not that TikTok lacked security concerns, but that the U.S. debate had become overly focused on a single platform and category of data. TikTok evolved into a political symbol, while less visible technologies integrated into critical sectors garnered significantly less public attention. The crucial question is not whether a single app poses a threat, but whether the United States possesses a coherent framework for evaluating foreign technologies embedded in critical systems. In this regard, the TikTok debate proved beneficial but incomplete. It revealed the issue of data dependency without fully addressing the more profound concern: strategic dependence on technologies that shape the management of critical
