Trump’s Gulf allies fear his Iran agreement is a ‘disastrous turning point’
Trump’s Gulf Allies Express Concern Over Iran Deal as ‘Disastrous Shift’
Trump s Gulf allies fear his Iran – For years, the United States and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations have shared a mutual understanding rooted in security and strategic interests. However, the current Iran agreement under President Donald Trump has sparked significant unease among these allies. Gulf leaders, who once viewed their partnership with Washington as foundational to regional stability, now see the deal as a pivotal moment that could reshape their geopolitical landscape. The accord, negotiated in Switzerland, has drawn criticism from figures like Hasan Alhasan, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), who argues it represents a ‘disastrous turning point’ for the Gulf’s security framework.
The agreement emerged after a year of escalating tensions. In 2019, Saudi Arabia endured a devastating attack on its oil infrastructure, which briefly halved its crude output and sent oil prices skyrocketing. Though Washington swiftly attributed the strikes to Iran, the incident raised questions about the U.S. commitment to protecting the Gulf. Gulf leaders, wary of being sidelined, began to reconsider their reliance on American guarantees. This skepticism deepened during Trump’s second term as the administration pursued a more transactional approach to regional alliances.
Trump’s 2018 decision to withdraw from the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal had already shaken Gulf confidence. At the time, he framed the relationship with Arab leaders as a business arrangement, stating in a public remark that the U.S. would ensure their security in exchange for financial support. ‘King, we’re protecting you. You might not be there for two weeks without us. You have to pay for your military,’ he said, encapsulating a view that contrasted sharply with the GCC’s long-standing perception of the partnership as a cornerstone of their defense. This mindset, however, proved vulnerable when the 2019 attacks occurred.
The oil facility strikes marked a critical juncture. Despite Trump’s assurances, the U.S. and Israel launched a military campaign against Iran, which triggered fierce retaliation across the Gulf. Regional governments were forced to confront the reality of their dependence on American military might. While the conflict showcased U.S. resolve, it also exposed the fragility of their alliances. The war’s aftermath left Gulf leaders questioning whether Washington’s security promises would hold in future crises.
In response, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio embarked on a regional tour in May 2020, visiting the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Kuwait. His mission was to reassure Gulf states that the U.S. remains committed to their interests. ‘We are going to protect this country,’ he declared in Doha, aiming to align the administration’s strategy with the Gulf’s concerns. Yet, the task proved challenging, as the emerging Iran deal had already sown doubt. The agreement, which includes a 14-point peace plan, has become a focal point for regional apprehension.
‘From the Arab Gulf states’ perspective, the Iran war is a disastrous turning point for the regional security order,’ said Hasan Alhasan, who sees the deal as part of a broader U.S. retreat from the Middle East. ‘US disengagement from the Gulf and the flow of financial and economic resources to Iran are likely to embolden Tehran further.’
The pact grants Iran a formal role in overseeing commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, alongside Oman. This provision has raised alarms, as it could allow Iranian influence over the Gulf’s energy exports and maritime trade routes. While the agreement includes a $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran, Gulf nations remain skeptical about its long-term implications. The deal also fails to address Iran’s missile program and its network of proxy militant groups, which many in the region consider more pressing threats than nuclear ambitions.
Rubio acknowledged these concerns during his visit to Abu Dhabi, stating that the missile program would be a central topic in discussions with Gulf leaders. However, Trump’s public stance last week seemed to downplay the issue, arguing that it was fair for Iran to possess missiles if Saudi Arabia did. This line of reasoning has fueled further debate about the balance of power and the U.S. role in the region. The emerging détente, while avoiding direct conflict, has left Gulf allies feeling like they’ve been sidelined in shaping the agreement’s terms.
Gulf states had previously opposed the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which they believed did not adequately address their security needs. Their support for Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from that agreement was rooted in the hope that Washington would prioritize their interests. Yet, the new pact has reignited their fears, as it leaves unresolved many of the concerns that had motivated their initial resistance. Alhasan noted that the deal reflects a ‘major loss of confidence in the US,’ as the region’s leaders grapple with the shift in American priorities.
A senior Gulf diplomat told CNN that the conflict demonstrated Iran’s preparedness to strike at key infrastructure. This realization has made the Gulf states more cautious, as they now seek assurances that the agreement will not weaken their defenses. The deal’s inclusion of a reconstruction fund for Iran has also been seen as a concession that could bolster Tehran’s economic strength, potentially allowing it to invest in more aggressive strategies against the GCC.
Despite these reservations, the Gulf states have supported the Iran-US ceasefire deal. For them, an imperfect agreement is preferable to the chaos of war. However, the deal’s success hinges on their continued trust in U.S. commitments. As Rubio emphasized during his tour, the U.S. aims to integrate their perspectives into every decision, recognizing the importance of their partnership in maintaining regional stability. Yet, the question remains: does this agreement offer a sustainable solution, or is it a fleeting compromise that may weaken the Gulf’s security in the long run?
The 14-point peace plan, while ambitious, has not fully addressed the Gulf’s anxieties. It includes provisions for reduced sanctions and increased trade, but leaves critical issues unmet. For example, the agreement does not impose strict limits on Iran’s missile capabilities or its support for militant groups in the region. These omissions have prompted Gulf leaders to demand more accountability from Washington. As the U.S. seeks to mend ties with its allies, the challenge lies in proving that the Iran deal is not just a strategic retreat, but a calculated step toward long-term security and economic cooperation.