Why Gulf Views on Iran Are Changing

The Arab position on Iran is shifting again, as a strategy built on de-escalation gives way to a more skeptical, security-driven assessment informed by recent attacks.

I was genuinely surprised.

Not by a statement from Riyadh or Abu Dhabi, but by an interview aired by Al Jazeera. Jasem Mohamed Al Budaiwi, Secretary-General of the Gulf Cooperation Council said:

“This is one of the most dangerous and sensitive phases the GCC has faced since its founding… comparable to the invasion of Kuwait in 1990… What Iran has done is unjustified aggression and unprovoked attacks against the countries of the region.”

For years, much of the Arab media ecosystem, including Al Jazeera, maintained a calibrated tone when it came to Iran. Critical at times, but often cautious, especially when Iran positioned itself within the broader narrative of resistance against Israel or the United States.

This interview was different. It reflected a level of clarity and frustration I haven’t seen before.

To understand why this matters, it is worth recalling how quickly the Arab position on Iran has evolved over the past decade.

There was a time not long ago when Saudi Arabia’s leadership described Iran’s supreme leader in existential terms. Mohammed bin Salman once warned that Ayatollah Khamenei was “the new Hitler of the Middle East,” capturing the depth of the perceived threat at the time.

But that phase did not last.

By 2023, the region had moved in a very different direction. Saudi Arabia and Iran agreed to restore diplomatic relations in a deal brokered by China. The agreement was widely seen as a significant step toward de-escalation after years of proxy conflict, with the potential to stabilize key states like Yemen and reduce regional tensions more broadly.

This shift was part of a broader strategic calculation across the Gulf. The priority became stability. Economic transformation agendas, particularly in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, required a more predictable regional environment. Engagement with Iran was about risk management, not trust.

And for a brief moment, it seemed to work.

The region experienced a relative cooling of tensions. Communication channels reopened, and the prospect of a managed coexistence, however tenuous, appeared possible.

That moment is now over.

The current conflict has exposed the limits of that approach. Iran is no longer perceived primarily through the lens of ideological rivalry or distant proxy conflicts. It is now seen as a direct and immediate security threat.

The targeting of Gulf infrastructure, airports, and energy assets has had a profound effect on policy thinking. These are countries that, until recently, were actively pursuing de-escalation. They engaged diplomatically, avoided confrontation, and in some cases positioned themselves as intermediaries.

And yet, they were still targeted.

From a policy perspective, the assumption that engagement could meaningfully reduce exposure to Iranian ire is now being reassessed. What was previously seen as a strategy to lower risk is increasingly viewed as insufficient in the face of direct threats.

The language coming out of the Gulf reflects this recalibration. The tone is more direct, less hedged, and increasingly aligned across capitals that historically approached Iran differently.

The Gulf has never been a fully unified strategic bloc. Qatar’s mediation role, Oman’s neutrality, Saudi Arabia’s leadership ambitions, and the UAE’s strategic pragmatism have often led to policy divergence.

What is developing now is a more unified assessment of Iran as a shared security concern.

This does not necessarily mean escalation is imminent. Gulf states are deeply invested in avoiding a wider regional war. But it does suggest that the fundamental baseline has moved. Engagement may continue, but it will be pursued with fewer illusions and under stricter assumptions about risk.

For policymakers in Washington and European capitals, this moment should be read carefully.

The Arab position is adaptive and shaped more by events than by ideology. Over the past decade, it has moved from confrontation to cautious engagement, and now back toward a more skeptical and security-driven posture.

What is different this time is the speed and clarity of the shift.

And that is why the interview on Al Jazeera matters. It signaled that the way Iran is being framed, not just by governments but in broader Arab discourse, is changing again.

The region has seen these cycles before. But each time, the stakes get higher. The Arabs have changed their minds about Iran. Again. And whatever happens next will determine whether the Gulf’s reassessment of Iran leads to lasting change or another temporary adjustment.

Middle East Uncovered is powered by Ideas Beyond Borders. The views expressed in Middle East Uncovered are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ideas Beyond Borders.