Ansarollah Website | Ali Al-Darwani
The outcome of the dangerous aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the expansion of the war to a regional level, should lead to the crystallization of a new strategic conviction in the Gulf capitals, especially Riyadh, namely that the historical equation of "security in exchange for oil" has expired. The current situation, with Iranian missiles reaching and striking American military bases in these countries, proves the inability of American forces to provide absolute protection for the host countries. Indeed, it reveals them as a source of high risks and open fronts of attrition, thus transforming the American military presence from a source of reassurance into a security and political burden that increases the likelihood of dragging the region into regional conflicts that do not serve the national development interests of these countries.
The American Gamble and the Conflict of Priorities
The American gamble with the region's security lies in Washington's insistence on maintaining the region as a military outpost serving its interests, at a time when the region's countries are striving to become a global economic hub. This contradiction forces the Gulf capitals to navigate a delicate balancing act between their alliance with Washington and their desire to remain uninvolved in the conflagration, ultimately leading them to the conclusion that preserving the alliance with Washington may only be possible by ending the presence of military bases on their soil.
The Shattering of Prestige and the Collapse of Traditional Deterrence
The inability of American defense systems to protect their bases and embassies against Iranian drone and missile attacks has shattered the prestige of traditional deterrence. This field failure is pushing Gulf capitals to redefine the concept of "strategic security." It is no longer logical to mortgage regional stability to Washington's hostile and adventurous policies, which prioritize the interests of the "Israeli enemy entity" at the expense of the security of its Arab allies and partners. The reality on the ground has proven that the sheer volume of missiles and attack drones can overwhelm and overwhelm even the most sophisticated systems, such as Patriot and THAAD, rendering these bases powerless in any comprehensive regional confrontation.
While American bases may have brought the Gulf a temporary, illusory sense of security in the past, today they bring real and tangible dangers. They have transformed the host countries into targets in a conflict in which they have no stake.
Gulf Neutrality and the Discourse Gap
It has been clear that Gulf capitals, particularly Riyadh, have adopted a strategy of distancing themselves from the conflict in public discourse to avoid being drawn into open warfare. Saudi Arabia, for example, refused to be part of the US-British coalition against Yemen to halt support for Gaza. Similarly, official Saudi statements emphasize non-participation in any military action targeting Iran, affirming its categorical rejection of the escalating situation. However, observers describe a discourse gap between the reserved official stance and the media narratives that almost suggest otherwise. This gap is further highlighted by leaks indicating the involvement of Mohammed bin Salman and Netanyahu in urging Trump to launch an attack on Iran, portraying it as an irreplaceable historical opportunity. Satellite images revealing a significant US military presence, with various types of fighter jets, military transport aircraft, and refueling planes deployed on runways and in hangars, along with air defense platforms such as Patriot systems, raise doubts about the sincerity of Saudi Arabia's declared opposition to this war.
In conclusion: Towards a Regional Security Free from Guardianship
The critical juncture in the region presents its states with an undeniable truth and an urgent task: relying on foreign bases is no longer a safeguard, and ending the American presence in the region has become an absolute necessity before it ignites a major conflagration. If Washington is incapable of protecting its own embassies and defense platforms, then betting on it in a comprehensive regional conflict is a losing, existential gamble. Therefore, the only way out lies in ending the era of security dependency and moving towards formulating a purely regional security framework based on sovereignty and shared interests with neighboring countries, independent of bases that have proven to be a burden on the people of the land, not the protective shield they were led to believe.
