The wisdom of stability amid the storms of war
Published: 05:03 PM,Mar 23,2026 | EDITED : 09:03 PM,Mar 23,2026
Major regional wars constitute a genuine test of neighbouring states' capacity to safeguard their national security and preserve their developmental achievements — particularly when they find themselves in the line of fire without being direct parties to the conflict. In this context, the American-Israeli war on Iran has represented a critically dangerous turning point in the contemporary history of the Arabian Gulf region, as its states were subjected to thousands of Iranian ballistic missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles targeting their civilian and vital infrastructure.
The Gulf states — from the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia — endured successive waves of Iranian ballistic missile strikes and drone attacks. These attacks were not confined to targets of a military nature; rather, they extended to international airports, seaports, strategic energy facilities and essential civilian assets, including hotels, residential complexes and government buildings. The targeting of civilian infrastructure belonging to states not directly engaged in the armed conflict constitutes an explicit violation of the principles of international humanitarian law, most notably the principles of distinction and proportionality enshrined in the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols.
From the very first moments of the outbreak of hostilities, the Gulf states adopted a position built upon three principal pillars: an immediate call for de-escalation, adherence to the provisions and principles of international law, and the avoidance of being drawn into reactionary alignments or inflammatory rhetoric that could deepen the crisis. Most critically, they refused to be drawn into the war despite being directly subjected to attacks. This position should not be interpreted as passive neutrality or an inability to act; rather, it is fundamentally a mature strategic calculation rooted in a profound understanding that wars are, by their very nature, protracted operations of attrition in which all parties lose to varying degrees, and that wisdom lies not in the pursuit of total military victory, but in minimising losses and preserving developmental gains.
The contemporary strategic posture of the Gulf cannot be adequately understood without reference to its historical trajectory. Over the past several decades, the region has experienced three major conflicts, each producing significant and enduring consequences. The first, the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), disrupted critical oil export routes and compelled the Gulf states to navigate complex and often precarious regional alignments. The second occurred in 1990 with Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, prompting a US-led international military intervention. The third episode, the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, resulted in the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime but simultaneously facilitated expanded external influence and contributed to the emergence of extremist actors across the Gulf. Collectively, these experiences have fostered a distinctive strategic consciousness within the Gulf, one that perceives armed conflict not as a mechanism for resolution but as a persistent drain on regional stability and developmental progress, irrespective of immediate military outcomes.
The Gulf states demanded the cessation of attacks on their territories, an end to political escalation, and the reopening of vital economic waterways — foremost among them the Strait of Hormuz, a critical economic lifeline for the region and the world. Certain Gulf states, particularly the Sultanate of Oman and the State of Qatar, have historically played pivotal roles in diplomatic mediation between Iran and Western powers. However, Iranian attacks on civilian targets within these states have undermined the effectiveness of existing diplomatic channels and complicated mediation efforts. Nevertheless, it remains an established truth in strategic studies that diplomatic solutions, not military ones, are what ultimately determine the outcome of protracted wars. Accordingly, wisdom dictates that regional and international channels of dialogue remain open regardless of the intensity of the confrontation.
In light of the foregoing, it becomes clear that the Gulf position on the American-Israeli war on Iran was neither a reflexive reaction nor an improvised stance. Rather, it was the product of a deep historical accumulation and a strategic awareness forged through the lessons of three major wars that exhausted the region and burdened its peoples. The Gulf states recognised that being drawn into war would lead to nothing but further destruction and attrition, and that the preservation of internal stability and developmental achievements constitutes, in and of itself, a form of strategic victory.
The region is in the most urgent need of elevating the language of diplomacy over the language of arms, for history repeatedly demonstrates that there are no true victors in wars — only losers to varying degrees. Channels of dialogue and mediation remain the sole guarantee for reaching sustainable settlements that preserve the region's security and stability and safeguard the rights of its peoples to development and peace.