The outcome of the dangerous aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran and the expansion of the war to a regional level should, by necessity, drive the crystallization of a new strategic conviction in Gulf capitals—foremost among them Riyadh—that the historic equation of “security in exchange for oil” has expired.

The current scene, marked by the arrival of Iranian missiles striking American military bases in these countries, proves that American forces are incapable of providing absolute protection to host nations. Indeed, it exposes those forces as a source of heightened risk and open fronts for attrition. Consequently, the American military presence has shifted from being a source of reassurance to becoming a security and political burden, increasing the likelihood of dragging the region into regional conflicts that do not serve the national development interests of these states.

The American Adventure and Conflicting Priorities

The American gamble with the region’s security lies in Washington’s insistence on maintaining the area as a military barracks serving its own interests, at a time when regional countries are striving to transform themselves into global economic hubs. This contradiction compels Gulf capitals to engage in a delicate maneuver—balancing their alliance with Washington against their desire to remain distant from the inferno of war.

Ultimately, this balancing act may lead to a decisive conclusion: preserving the alliance with Washington may only be possible by ending the presence of military bases on their soil.

المتغطي بأمريكا عريان.. هل تعي دول الخليج هذه الحقيقة؟

The outcome of the dangerous aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran and the expansion of the war to a regional level should, by necessity, drive the crystallization of a new strategic conviction in Gulf capitals—foremost among them Riyadh—that the historic equation of “security in exchange for oil” has expired.

The current scene, marked by the arrival of Iranian missiles striking American military bases in these countries, demonstrates the inability of U.S. forces to provide absolute protection to host states. Indeed, it exposes those forces as a source of heightened risk and open fronts for attrition. Consequently, the American military presence has shifted from being a source of reassurance to becoming a security and political burden, increasing the likelihood of dragging the region into regional conflicts that do not serve the national development interests of these states.

The American Adventure and Contradiction of Priorities

The American gamble with the region’s security lies in Washington’s insistence on maintaining the area as a military barracks serving its own interests, at a time when regional countries are striving to transform themselves into global economic hubs. This contradiction compels Gulf capitals to engage in a delicate maneuver—balancing their alliance with Washington against their desire to remain distant from the inferno of war.

Ultimately, this balancing act may lead to a decisive conclusion: 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 Fall 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 pushes Gulf capitals to redefine the concept of “strategic security.” It is no longer logical to mortgage regional stability to Washington’s hostile and adventurist policies, which prioritize the interests of the Israeli enemy entity over the security of its Arab allies and partners.

On the ground, it has become evident that missile saturation and kamikaze drones are capable of exhausting and bypassing even the most sophisticated defense systems, such as the Patriot and THAAD platforms. In any comprehensive regional confrontation, these bases would become little more than "lame ducks".

If American bases previously brought the Gulf a temporary and illusory sense of security, today they bring real and tangible dangers. They have transformed host countries into targets in a conflict in which they have neither stake nor interest.

Gulf Neutrality and the Gap in Discourse

It has been clear that Gulf capitals, publicly and at the media level—led by Riyadh—have adopted a strategy of self-distancing to avoid sliding into the furnace of open conflicts. Saudi Arabia, for instance, refused to be part of the American-British coalition against Yemen aimed at halting support for Gaza.

In the same context, official Saudi statements have emphasized non-participation in any military action targeting Iran, affirming categorical rejection of the escalation path. This comes despite what observers describe as a rhetorical gap between the cautious official stance and media orientations that appear to suggest otherwise.

Additionally, there are leaks indicating that Mohammed bin Salman and Netanyahu participated in urging Trump to launch aggression against Iran, portraying it as a historic and irreplaceable opportunity. Satellite imagery has also revealed an intensive American military presence, with various types of fighter jets, military transport aircraft, and refueling planes deployed across runways and hangars, in addition to air defense platforms such as Patriot systems. These developments raise doubts about the authenticity of the proclaimed “Saudi rejection” of the war.

Conclusion: Toward a Regional Security Order Without Guardianship

This sensitive regional moment places countries of the region before an undeniable reality and an urgent mission: reliance on foreign bases is no longer a safety valve, and ending the American presence in the region has become an absolute necessity before it turns into the spark of a major conflagration.

If Washington is incapable of protecting its own embassies and defense platforms, betting on it in a comprehensive regional conflict is a losing existential gamble. The only viable exit lies in ending the era of security dependency and transitioning toward the formulation of a purely regional security architecture based on sovereignty and shared interests with neighboring states—far removed from bases that have proven, with time, to be a burden on their host nations rather than the protective shield they were once promised to be.