Middle East
Gulf states quietly urge US to intensify strikes on Iran while avoiding direct war
Gulf states have stopped short of calling for a full-scale US war with Iran, but several are now urging Washington to continue hitting Iranian targets, according to multiple sources familiar with regional deliberations.
Three Gulf sources, alongside five Western and Arab diplomats who spoke to Reuters, said the United States has also been pressing Gulf governments to join the US-Israel campaign.
According to three of those sources, President Donald Trump is seeking to demonstrate regional backing in order to bolster both the campaign’s international legitimacy and domestic support.
Abdulaziz Sager, chairman of the Saudi-based Gulf Research Center and a figure closely aligned with government thinking, said there is now a widespread perception across the Gulf that Iran has crossed every red line with regard to its neighbors.
“At the outset, we defended them and opposed the war. But the moment they began launching attacks against us, they became an enemy. There is no other way to describe them,” Sager said.
Tehran has already demonstrated its reach, disrupting maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz while launching missile and drone strikes on airports, ports, oil installations and commercial hubs across the six Gulf states.
The waterway functions as a critical artery for the global economy, carrying roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and underpinning Gulf economic stability.
The attacks have reinforced fears in the region that leaving Iran with significant strike capabilities or weapons production capacity would embolden it to hold the Gulf’s energy lifeline hostage whenever tensions escalate.
As the war enters its third week, one Gulf source described the prevailing mood among regional leaders as unequivocal: Trump must comprehensively degrade Iran’s military capabilities.
The alternative, the source said, is to live under a constant threat, arguing that unless seriously weakened, Iran will continue to “hold the region hostage.”
For Gulf leaders, the report added, inaction now carries greater risks than escalation.
The impact of Iran’s attacks this month has gone far beyond material damage. Beyond disrupting oil flows, they have undermined the carefully cultivated image of stability and security that Gulf states rely on to expand trade, attract tourism and reduce dependence on fossil fuel exports.
“If the Americans withdraw before the job is done, we will be left to face Iran alone,” Sager said.
Responding to questions about these concerns, the White House said the United States had “crushed (Iran’s) ability to launch these weapons or produce more,” adding that Trump remains in close contact with partners in the Middle East.
Among Gulf states, only the United Arab Emirates has formally responded to US calls. The country said it does not wish to be drawn into conflict or escalation, but reaffirmed its right to take “all necessary measures” to safeguard its sovereignty, security and territorial integrity and to protect its citizens.
Regional sources said unilateral military intervention is not under consideration, as only collective action could shield individual states from retaliation.
Even so, consensus remains elusive. The six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council — Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman and the UAE — have held only a single Zoom meeting, and no Arab summit has been convened to coordinate action.
Gulf leaders remain deeply concerned about triggering a broader, uncontrollable conflict.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said last week that Gulf partners had “leaned forward” and were ready to “go on offense,” adding that they are already working with Washington on integrated air defense, though he did not specify what further steps they might take.
A senior UAE official said the country prefers restraint after Iran claimed that the US military used the UAE to launch strikes on Kharg Island, Iran’s main oil export terminal.
Sager said Saudi Arabia, Iran’s principal regional rival, could be forced to retaliate if Tehran crosses further red lines — particularly by striking key oil infrastructure or desalination plants, or causing heavy casualties.
“In that case, Saudi Arabia would have no choice but to intervene,” he said, while adding that Riyadh would likely seek to calibrate any response to avoid further escalation.
Fawaz Gerges of the London School of Economics said Gulf states face a fundamental strategic dilemma: balancing the immediate threat posed by Iranian attacks against the far greater risk of being drawn into a US- and Israel-led war.
Joining the campaign would add little to Washington’s military advantage, he said, but would sharply increase exposure to Iranian retaliation.
The result is a posture of calculated restraint: defending sovereignty and signaling red lines without entering a war they neither initiated nor control.
For now, Iran retains a decisive lever. It is effectively determining which ships can pass through the Strait of Hormuz — a situation no state in the region considers acceptable.
Bernard Haykel of Princeton University said the Gulf now faces a fundamentally different kind of threat after Iran demonstrated it could shut the strait.
“If this danger is not addressed, it will have long-term consequences,” he said.
Haykel added that while the global economy depends heavily on Gulf oil and gas, most of those exports flow eastward to China, Japan and other Asian economies — implying they, too, should shoulder responsibility.
“China helped secure sea lanes off Somalia. It may be willing to intervene here as well,” he said.
Middle East
US waives human rights terms on $320m military aid to Egypt
The US State Department stated that it has waived human rights conditions on more than $300 million in military aid to Egypt.
The statement emphasised that this decision was taken in consideration of Cairo’s “helpful role” since the outbreak of the war against Iran.
Egypt began receiving substantial support from the US after signing a peace treaty with Israel in 1979.
Since the late 1980s, the country has received approximately $1.3 billion annually in US military assistance.
A portion of this aid is subject to conditions related to human rights and democracy, which can be waived on national security grounds.
Withholding funds, including during the administration of former US President Joe Biden, has caused tension between Cairo and Washington in the past.
A letter dated 21 September and addressed to various congressional committees, obtained by Reuters, stated that Secretary of State Marco Rubio “decided to waive the certification requirement under the fiscal year 2025 Foreign Military Financing programme for Egypt of $320 million.”
This waiver was subsequently confirmed by the State Department.
An accompanying memorandum justifying the decision stated that this portion of military aid was “essential for counterterrorism, border security, or non-proliferation programmes, or otherwise important to the national security interests of the United States.”
The memorandum, dated 4 September and bearing Rubio’s signature, stated: “Exercising this waiver authority is critical to the US-Egypt relationship and to US national security priorities, particularly given the helpful role Egypt has played in the aftermath of Operation Epic Fury.”
“Operation Epic Fury” is the designation used by the US military for the campaign launched jointly with Israel against Iran in late February.
The State Department memorandum, whose authenticity was confirmed by two sources in Washington familiar with the letter, did not provide detailed information regarding what was termed Egypt’s “helpful role”.
The State Department’s annual decision on military aid to Egypt typically covers funds allocated for the preceding fiscal year, which ends on 30 September.
A State Department spokesperson stated that Rubio waived the certification in the interest of US national security and that the US continues to cooperate with the Egyptian government across a range of issues.
In an emailed statement, the spokesperson said: “This waiver recognizes the importance of maintaining security cooperation with Egypt at a time of significant security challenges in the region.”
The Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not immediately comment on the matter.
The spillover effects of the Iran war have imposed a heavy toll on US security partners, including Egypt.
Owing to rising fuel prices and other disruptions, the Egyptian economy is passing through a difficult period.
Under the Biden administration, the US withheld portions of the annual military allocation on multiple occasions over Egypt’s human rights record.
In 2024, following the Hamas-led 7 October attack on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza, the Biden administration set aside human rights conditions, disbursing the entire $1.3 billion allocation to Egypt for the first time in its tenure.
Human rights organisations have long accused Egypt, under the administration of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, of widespread human rights abuses, including torture and enforced disappearances.
This week, Egyptian police detained six journalists from a fact-checking and investigative media outlet, accusing them of spreading false information on behalf of the banned Muslim Brotherhood.
Egyptian authorities state that they have taken steps to address human rights issues. Sisi said stability is paramount and that the government supports human rights by working to provide for basic needs.
Middle East
Britain expands curbs on arms exports to Israel over Gaza risks
Britain has significantly broadened its military export restrictions targeting Israel, suspending or rejecting more than 80 licences for items the IDF could use in Gaza.
This figure is nearly triple the number affected when the policy was first introduced in September 2024.
United Kingdom Minister of State for the Middle East Stephen Doughty said that as part of what he described as a “tighter system” for assessing exports to Israel, more than 50 further export applications have been refused since approximately 30 licences were initially suspended.
Under the initial decision taken in September 2024, 30 of roughly 350 licences were suspended after the British government concluded there was a “clear risk” that certain military exports could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza.
The affected equipment included components for military aircraft, drones, naval systems, and targeting gear.
Doughty said additional measures adopted this month established what he termed a “double safeguard” mechanism within the approvals process.
Export applications must now be assessed both against existing international humanitarian law criteria and in light of Britain’s position on the legality of Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territories.
“We have so far suspended or refused more than 80 licences,” Doughty said, adding that he had personally examined each licence.
Despite the wider restrictions, British-origin parts entering the international F-35 fighter jet supply chain continue to be largely exempt.
The UK government argues that preventing British-made components from entering the global F-35 pool could undermine the programme as a whole and have serious consequences for the security of the UK and its allies.
Direct exports of F-35 parts intended specifically for Israel remain suspended.
Doughty defended maintaining the supply of components via the international programme, arguing that halting it could have severe ramifications for the broader European and allied security architecture.
Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Emily Thornberry challenged this position, arguing that the issue was political rather than purely legal.
Thornberry suggested adopting an approach similar to the Dutch model, under which components entering the international supply chain could be flagged as “not intended for aircraft bound for Israel”.
The initial suspension was implemented in September 2024 by then Foreign Secretary David Lammy.
Lammy stressed at the time that the measure did not constitute an arms embargo and applied solely to items assessed as usable in military operations in Gaza.
Since then, the policy has been tightened further under Prime Minister Andy Burnham.
The expanded export restrictions follow the Burnham government’s adoption of a more confrontational policy toward the Israeli government.
Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband drew sustained applause at the Labour Party’s annual conference in Liverpool after delivering a sharp critique of the Netanyahu government’s policies and defending the decision to ban trade with Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Accusing Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza, Miliband stated that the British government heard public outrage over the conflict, telling delegates: “We hear you. You were right.”
Middle East
Netanyahu holds secret UAE talks with Saudi Arabia and Arab officials
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with representatives of Gulf and Arab nations that lack diplomatic ties with Israel, including Saudi Arabia, during his weekend visit to the United Arab Emirates.
Sources close to the gathering told the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth on Monday that representatives from Morocco, Libya, Jordan, and Qatar also took part in the meeting.
Netanyahu made a unannounced visit to Abu Dhabi on Sunday, where he met with the country’s leader, Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.
According to Israeli media, this marked the first time the United Arab Emirates officially confirmed a visit by Netanyahu.
The meeting was arranged by Mossad Director Roman Goffman “at the request of Saudi Arabia, which asked for Israel’s assistance against Houthi attacks in the Red Sea region,” according to Yedioth Ahronoth.
The discussions addressed Iran and the Houthi militia. The newspaper added that the Arab states heard from Israel that “Israel is prepared to assist countries in the region with air defence systems, just as it aided the UAE during the conflict with Iran.”
Conflict in Yemen intensified in September when Ansarullah militiamen launched a rapid offensive that seized Yemen’s entire Red Sea coastline, including the vital maritime corridor of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.
The Yemeni resistance also imposed a blockade on Saudi Arabia’s energy exports and staged multiple attacks against the kingdom.
Saudi Arabia reportedly sought military assistance from the US to counter Ansarullah.
Washington declined to attack the Houthis directly, but announced that it would provide intelligence and targeting support.
Reporting on the same visit, The Jerusalem Post said Netanyahu spent six hours in the UAE and that the principal subject of his discussions with MBZ was Iran.
Citing sources familiar with the matter, the newspaper added that the trip came “after Netanyahu exerted heavy pressure on the United Arab Emirates to arrange a meeting ahead of the Israeli elections on 27 October.”
Separately, the Associated Press, citing a person with direct knowledge of the meeting, reported that Netanyahu’s visit to the UAE was arranged in part to ask MBZ to deny reports that he had warned the Israeli prime minister of an impending Hamas threat prior to 7 October 2023.
According to Israeli media, Netanyahu’s office denied the AP report, issuing the following statement:
“Fake news. The visit focused solely on strengthening ties between the two countries and on regional issues.”
-
Europe5 days agoEuropean unions urge governments to scrap all Palantir deals
-
Diplomacy5 days agoEast-West Forum in Istanbul highlights irreversible shift to multipolarity
-
Europe1 week agoEmmanuel Todd says West faces collapse amid Ukraine and Iran crises
-
Europe1 week agoEuropean intelligence chiefs divide over risk of Russian attack
-
Diplomacy1 week agoEast-West Forum in Istanbul to debate multipolarity and global order
-
Middle East1 week agoSharaa says 7 October must not shape Israel policy on Syria
-
America1 week agoRepublican support for Trump’s war with Iran drops sharply in polls
-
Middle East1 week agoPalestinian factions confront legitimacy crisis at Istanbul talks
