Iran-Israel tensions: How Gulf states, led by the UAE, are charting a path away from taking sides

When fires break out between Tehran and Tel Aviv, the neighbours are usually the first to feel the heat. But this time, the situation is different. The Gulf states, led by the UAE, are neither mere spectators nor are they falling into line behind a particular axis. What we are witnessing is a defining moment that is redefining the concept of "strategic autonomy" in one of the world's most complex regions.

Critical moments in the Gulf: between a rock and a hard place

The recent confrontation, in which Iran and Israel crossed all previous red lines, has put Gulf capitals to a test unlike any since the first Gulf War. Abu Dhabi, Riyadh and Doha all know that sliding into a full-scale escalation would pose a direct threat to the economic stability they have spent decades building. The choice is no longer between "supporting" or "rejecting" one side over the other; it's about safeguarding the nation's resources through shrewd crisis management.

From the early days of the recent clashes, it was clear that the GCC states were operating at a different pace compared to past confrontations. There was no rush to declare rigid military alliances, but rather intensive behind-the-scenes consultations. This is not a war where you pick a side based on emotion or even short-term interests, because the potential losses are too great for any treasury to bear.

From past allegiances to present independence: a look at major shifts

What's happening today is the culmination of a long journey that began over a decade ago. Looking at the map of alliances in the region, it's noticeable that Gulf states no longer view Washington as their "sole protector." This is not to downplay the value of the strategic partnership with Washington, but rather a natural evolution towards "multipolar alliances."

In the meantime, the role of Asian powers – China and India – is emerging in a way we couldn't have imagined a generation ago. Beijing is no longer just a trading partner; it has become a key player in the regional balance equation. These shifts, studied by academics in global research centres, have become a tangible reality in Gulf decision-making offices. The UAE was among the first to realise that security is no longer an exclusive commodity to be purchased from a single party, but the product of a complex web of mutual interests.

Cards on the table: how is Abu Dhabi reading the situation?

The UAE has its own calculations in this equation. Three key points shape the Emirati stance today:

• Economic stability first: Abu Dhabi knows that any regional escalation will threaten the trade and foreign investment on which its economic vision depends. That's why it's always among the first to call for restraint and a return to dialogue.
• Diversifying military and security partners: Cooperation with Washington does not preclude understandings with Moscow and Beijing to ensure the region is not dragged into a war of attrition. This flexibility gives Abu Dhabi more room to manoeuvre, moving away from the "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality.
• Experience in crisis management: From Yemen to Sudan, and through energy issues, the UAE has shown it has accumulated expertise in handling interconnected crises without sacrificing national priorities.

Wider arenas: from Oman and Yemen to Washington

You can't view the Iran-Israel conflict in isolation from other theatres. Muscat has played its classic role as an honest broker, while Yemen remains a theatre for ballistic missiles that threaten to widen the conflict if not contained. And in Washington, policymakers now realise that Gulf states are no longer "subordinate allies," but partners with their own independent interests that must be considered before any military step that could drag the region into an all-out war nobody wants.

Even in seemingly distant areas like US sports, we find it has become part of the normalisation narrative, reflecting the deep ties between the two sides. These multifaceted connections make it highly unlikely that any Gulf state would opt to "cut ties" or engage in "absolute alignment" at this stage.

The tough choice: is there an alternative to war?

The most pressing question observers are asking today is: can Gulf states succeed in building a "post-war" region before a full-scale war even breaks out? Signals from Abu Dhabi and Riyadh suggest a genuine will to de-escalate tensions between the various parties. The UAE hasn't just acted as a mediator; it has gone further, working to build economic and technological bridges with Tehran despite the security tensions, in an effort to show that shared interests can serve as a barrier to military escalation.

Just last week, there were closed-door meetings between senior officials in the region discussing scenarios for any potential conflict. The message from those meetings was clear: the region cannot afford another war, and any miscalculations will cost everyone dearly. This is not just diplomatic rhetoric; it is the conclusion of years of experience managing one of the world's most volatile regions.

All things considered, the situation remains fluid and open to all possibilities. But what is certain is that the Gulf states today, led by the UAE, have become key players in the peace and security equation, not just as mediators, but as decision-makers with their own tools. The future cannot afford the mistakes of the past, and everyone knows that the real bet is on stability, even if the price is abandoning rigid alignments.