At a moment when diplomacy seemed within reach, the United States and Israel chose war. That decision alone raises serious questions about their stated intentions. If the objective was truly to protect the Iranian people or prevent escalation, then why abandon negotiations at their most critical stage?
Attacking during negotiations does not signal a desire for resolution; it signals the opposite. It demonstrates that diplomacy was never the priority, despite public claims that the war is about liberating the Iranian population from the regime. If peace had truly been the goal, negotiations would have continued. Instead, they were replaced by bombs.
Iran’s response, while deeply concerning, was predictable. “Iran’s retaliation against what it claims are American targets on the territory of its neighbours was an inevitable... result,” stated Sayyid Badr bin Hamad al Busaidy, Foreign Minister, in The Economist. This retaliation has drawn Gulf Arab countries into a conflict they neither initiated nor desired. Many of these states host American military bases under the premise of security cooperation. Yet those very bases have now become targets, turning protection into vulnerability.
The economic implications are also serious. The Gulf region is not only a geopolitical crossroads but also a centre of global energy, tourism and technological development. Instability threatens all three, according to the foreign minister.
One of the most critical pressure points is the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant portion of the world’s oil supply passes. Any disruption in this corridor has immediate global repercussions. Energy prices have already shown signs of volatility in response to the escalating tensions, reflecting the fragility of global markets when conflict reaches such a strategically vital area.
Beyond energy, the region’s broader economic ambitions are at risk. Gulf countries have invested heavily in diversifying their economies, developing tourism sectors, expanding technological infrastructure and positioning themselves as global hubs. Ongoing conflict jeopardises these plans. Tourism declines when security is uncertain. Investment slows when risk increases. Long-term development strategies become harder to sustain in an environment shaped by instability.
The involvement of the United States in this conflict also raises important questions about precedent. This is not the first time the US has entered a war under the banner of protecting populations or restoring stability. From Iraq in 2003, to interventions in Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia, similar justifications have been used. In many cases, the outcomes have been prolonged instability, weakened institutions and significant civilian suffering rather than the promised security or democratic transformation.
Public sentiment within the United States appears to reflect a growing fatigue with such interventions. Public discourse suggests that many Americans are increasingly sceptical of foreign military engagements, particularly those that risk entangling the country in another prolonged conflict. There is little appetite for sending troops into yet another war, especially one that does not present a clear and direct threat to US national security.
At the same time, the dynamics of this conflict point to the significant influence of Israel in shaping US foreign policy in the region. Israel’s longstanding tensions with Iran are well-documented, and its strategic objectives, whether framed in terms of security or regional dominance, have played a central role in escalating hostilities. Critics argue that the United States’ involvement risks aligning too closely with these objectives, rather than pursuing an independent assessment of its own national interests.
This alignment raises a broader concern: whether the current trajectory of the conflict is driven more by geopolitical ambitions than by genuine efforts to achieve peace. The idea that military escalation can produce stability has been repeatedly challenged by history. More often than not, it produces the opposite.
As Sayyid Badr mentioned, the deeper issue is that this war appears to have been built on a miscalculation. “Israel’s leadership seems to have persuaded America that Iran had been so weakened... that an unconditional surrender would swiftly follow.” That assumption has already proven false. Instead of a quick resolution, the region is facing the possibility of a prolonged escalation.
This is where regional actors, particularly Gulf states, could play a constructive role. Oman, long known for its diplomatic neutrality, has previously facilitated dialogue between Iran and the United States. Sayyid Badr has emphasised the importance of dialogue and de-escalation as the only viable path to stability.
If there is to be any path forward, it must begin with a return to diplomacy. All parties involved, the United States, Israel and Iran, must commit to halting attacks and re-engaging in meaningful negotiations. Peace cannot be imposed through force; it must be built through dialogue, compromise and mutual recognition of interests.
Oman al YahyainThe writer is a multilingual writer and media professional based in Paris. She specialises in human rights and immigration
Oman Observer is now on the WhatsApp channel. Click here
