The views and opinions expressed in articles published in this section are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the official positions or views of PAIAB.
US Military Bases in the Persian Gulf
The architecture of the American military presence in the Persian Gulf was significantly expanded after the September 11, 2001 attacks. Under the banner of the Global War on Terror and the broader objective of containing Iran, Washington deepened its military footprint across the region. Even after the formal end of major operations in 2021, these installations were not reduced. Facilities were upgraded to accommodate aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines. At the same time, Bahrain, home to the headquarters of the U.S. Fifth Fleet since 1995, evolved into an even larger naval hub following the 2003 Iraq War. The pattern suggests that the American military presence in the Persian Gulf was never conceived as temporary. For Tehran, this entrenched network of bases, combined with sanctions, hostile rhetoric, and periodic military incidents, constitutes a persistent strategic pressure in its immediate neighborhood. No state that perceives itself to be under continuous threat is likely to tolerate such a configuration indefinitely.
From “Manageable Risk” to Existential Threat
In Tehran’s initial assessment, the brief but intense confrontation often referred to as the “Twelve-Day War” was treated as a manageable escalation. Iranian responses were deliberately calibrated to preserve strategic deterrence while avoiding a wider conflict. Tehran’s strikes were measured so as not to inflict casualties on U.S. personnel or to target American bases directly, and the confrontation ultimately ended in a fragile ceasefire. However, subsequent developments appear to have altered Tehran’s threat perception. Aggressive rhetoric from political leaders renewed attempts to trigger international sanctions mechanisms such as the “snapback,” foreign-backed unrest inside Iran, and increased military deployments around the country have contributed to a shift in strategic thinking.
Iranian policymakers increasingly frame the situation not merely as pressure on the political system but as a potential existential threat to the state itself, especially in light of publicly discussed proposals in some Western and Israeli regime policy circles regarding the fragmentation or partition of Iran. Under such circumstances, Tehran’s posture appears to be shifting from strategic restraint toward what it calls “strategic offense.”
A Strategic Message to the Persian Gulf Arab States
For decades, Persian Gulf Arab monarchies hosting American bases have invested heavily in their security relationship with Washington. Billions of dollars have been spent on U.S. weapons systems, financial investments, and defense arrangements that were intended to guarantee protection against regional threats. Yet recent crises have exposed the limits of this security architecture. Iranian military response to attacks using bases in the region and the subsequent regional tensions have reportedly generated frustration in several of these capitals, where officials question whether the United States would actually shield them in a large-scale confrontation. Reports that certain missile interceptors or defensive systems were not made available despite prior purchases have amplified these concerns. From Tehran’s perspective, the unfolding events serve an educational function: they highlight what Iranian leaders argue is a fundamental asymmetry in Washington’s regional priorities, where the security of Israel takes precedence over the defense commitments implicitly made to Persian Gulf partners.
The Question of Arab Alignment
Iranian strategists also interpret the regional landscape through the lens of long-standing political grievances. While Persian Gulf Arab states experienced decades of rapid economic growth fueled by oil revenues and global investment, Iran endured severe sanctions and economic isolation. At the same time, some Arab governments publicly pursued diplomatic engagement with Tehran while privately coordinating with Washington to counter Iranian influence. Historical examples frequently cited by Iranian analysts include leaked diplomatic communications in which some regional leaderships urged the United States to confront Iran more aggressively, as well as allegations that certain regional actors quietly supported financial or political pressure campaigns against Tehran. These perceptions reinforce the belief within parts of the Iranian establishment that regional alignments must fundamentally change. From this viewpoint, Persian Gulf Arab states face a strategic choice: either distance themselves from the American military framework and move toward a regional security arrangement that includes Iran, or adopt a posture of strict neutrality.
The Logic behind Iranian Strikes
Iranian military actions against selected military and economic targets in Persian Gulf Arab states were remedial in nature, carried out in response to intelligence and logistical support—provided via air and maritime routes—that contributed to the initiation of attacks against it. These actions appeared to pursue several interconnected objectives. First, by damaging infrastructure linked to U.S. military operations—such as ports, airfields, or logistical hubs—Tehran aimed to impose significant reconstruction costs before these facilities could return to their previous operational capacity.
Second, the strikes were intended to influence the strategic calculus of Persian Gulf Arab governments and societies by demonstrating the vulnerability of hosting foreign bases during periods of confrontation.
Third, and perhaps most important from a military standpoint, the campaign reflected Iran’s broader Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) strategy. By degrading or eliminating nearby staging areas, Iran sought to complicate any future large-scale military operation against it. Without secure bases, ports, and airfields in proximity, a hypothetical invasion would have become vastly more difficult to organize. With U.S. forces no longer present in Afghanistan, uncertainty in Iraq, and Turkey refusing to participate in such a campaign, the logistical foundation for a major ground or amphibious assault became increasingly fragile.
A Stark Strategic Warning
The underlying message Tehran appeared to be sending to its Persian Gulf neighbors was blunt but strategic: regional security and economic prosperity could have potentially emerged from a post-American security architecture, but the continued hosting of U.S. military forces would have made their territories front-line targets in any conflict involving Iran. In practical terms, this meant that cities, infrastructure, and economic hubs could have faced repeated disruption if foreign military installations had remained operational. The economic stakes were considerable. Major commercial centers relied heavily on uninterrupted tourism, aviation, trade, and energy flows. Even brief disruptions generated enormous financial losses measured in millions of dollars per minute. Over time, such pressure forced regional leaders to reconsider the long-term sustainability of their current security arrangements. Ironically, the only immediate political instability generated by this confrontation occurred not in Iran, but in the smaller states whose domestic legitimacy depended on economic stability and external protection. Several variations of this broader idea have been proposed in recent years—such as HOPE and Muslim West Asian Dialogue Association (MWADA), as well as MENARA—all introduced by Iran in succession. However, these initiatives have received little to no response from the other parties.
Control of the Strait of Hormuz and the Demonstration of Strategic Capacity
A major turning point in the evolving confrontation was Iran’s decision to effectively regulate – if not fully close – the passage of tankers and commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz. What made this development particularly striking was not only the decision itself, long considered too escalatory to implement, but Iran’s demonstrated ability to sustain such control over time. Even more consequential was Tehran’s apparent capacity to differentiate between vessels based on political alignment, allowing the passage of “friendly” shipping while restricting those associated with hostile actors. This occurred despite explicit threats from Donald Trump, including warnings of strikes against Iranian energy infrastructure. The episode underscored a combination of calculation, operational capability, and political will that reshaped external assessments of Iran’s deterrence posture.
Limits of U.S. Coalition-Building and Strategic Retrenchment
Washington’s response further reinforced this shift in perception. Attempts by Donald Trump to mobilize allied support for a coordinated response reportedly were unsuccessful, with even traditional partners in Europe, and notably the United Kingdom-declining to participate in escalation. This reluctance signaled not only war fatigue but also a divergence in threat perception between the United States and its allies. Faced with limited international backing and rising operational risks, Washington appeared to step back from its most aggressive posture. The episode revealed constraints on U.S. freedom of action and suggested that coalition-based enforcement mechanisms in the region may no longer function as reliably as in previous decades.
Escalation, Retaliation, and Fractures within the Persian Gulf Alignment
The cycle of action and reaction intensified when the Israeli regime targeted Iran’s South Pars energy infrastructure, prompting a calibrated Iranian response in Qatar. Rather than consolidating a unified anti-Iran front, this exchange exposed fractures within the regional alignment. Qatari leadership reportedly expressed greater frustration toward the United States and Israel than toward Iran, particularly as their territory became entangled in the confrontation. There were indications that Doha reconsidered the extent of its cooperation with U.S. military operations, including support for air missions. In response, Donald Trump publicly distanced himself from the escalation, suggesting that the Israeli regime’s action had not been coordinated with Washington and would not be repeated – another sign of de-escalatory recalibration under pressure.
European Strategic Autonomy and Airspace Denial
Another notable development was the reported restriction by key European states, including Spain and Italy, on the use of their airspace for U.S. military operations targeting Iran. This move, coupled with a broader and gradual shift in tone from major European powers such as Germany, the United Kingdom, and France, suggested an emerging rebalancing of positions. While not necessarily indicating alignment with Iran, these actions reflected growing European concern over uncontrolled escalation and a desire to assert strategic autonomy. The cumulative effect was to complicate U.S. operational planning and signal that transatlantic unity on Middle Eastern military interventions can no longer be assumed.
Narrative Management and the Search for a Face-Saving Exit
Amid these developments, the rhetoric of Donald Trump became increasingly inconsistent, at times suggesting that political change in Iran had already occurred – claims that appeared disconnected from observable realities. Such statements can be interpreted less as factual assessments and more as attempts to construct a narrative pathway for de-escalation. Indeed, a widening gap emerged between earlier maximalist threats, ranging from seizing enriched uranium and targeting all Iranian energy infrastructure to deploying ground forces or even contemplating extreme scenarios, and the absence of their implementation. This growing list of unfulfilled threats points to a strategic impasse in which Washington seeks an off-ramp that preserves credibility.
The Emerging Role of Regional and Global Mediators
In this context, the possibility of a face-saving exit increasingly depends on third-party facilitation. Regional actors, alongside major powers such as China, are positioned to play a critical role in shaping a de-escalatory framework that allows all sides to step back without formal concession. At the same time, there are indications that Washington’s room for maneuver has been constrained not only by external resistance but also by alignment pressures from Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu. The interplay between these dynamics suggests that the trajectory of the crisis is no longer determined solely in Washington, but is instead the product of a more complex and shifting balance of power, one in which Iran’s demonstrated resolve and asymmetric capabilities are actively redefining the strategic environment.
Conclusion
Taken together, these developments point to a fundamental transformation in the strategic landscape of the Persian Gulf – one that challenges long-standing assumptions about power, deterrence, and alliance structures in the region. The enduring expansion of U.S. military infrastructure, originally justified by the Global War on Terror, has increasingly come to be perceived by Tehran not as a stabilizing force but as a permanent and escalating threat. This perception, reinforced by cycles of confrontation, coercive rhetoric, and shifting international alignments, has driven Iran to move from a posture of calibrated restraint toward a more assertive and proactive strategic doctrine.
At the same time, Iran’s actions, ranging from its calibrated strikes to its demonstrated ability to influence maritime flows in the Strait of Hormuz-have revealed both capability and intent. These moves are not merely tactical; they are designed to reshape the strategic calculus of regional actors and to impose new constraints on external intervention. By targeting the infrastructure and assumptions that underpin U.S. military presence, Iran is effectively testing the durability of the existing security architecture in the Persian Gulf.
Equally significant was the emerging fragmentation within the U.S.-led coalition. The reluctance of European allies to support escalation, the visible discomfort among Persian Gulf Arab states, and the growing assertion of strategic autonomy by regional and global actors all suggested that the era of automatic alignment behind Washington was fading. This diffusion of power had created a more complex and fluid environment in which multiple actors – state and non‑state, regional and global – were actively shaping outcomes.
In this evolving context, the crisis appeared to have reached a strategic inflection point. The United States, constrained by limited coalition support and rising risks, was searching for an exit that preserved credibility, while Iran was leveraging its asymmetric advantages to redefine deterrence on its own terms. The involvement of third‑party mediators, including major powers, further underscored that the resolution of this crisis would likely emerge from a multilateral negotiation framework rather than unilateral action.
Ultimately, the trajectory outlined in this analysis suggests that the Persian Gulf is moving – gradually but decisively – toward a post-American security paradigm, or at least toward a significantly diluted version of it. Whether this transition leads to a more stable regional order or a more volatile and fragmented one will depend on the ability of regional actors to recalibrate their alignments, manage their rivalries, and construct new mechanisms of collective security in the absence of unquestioned external dominance.