Media Review: Yemeni strikes shift pressure from Hormuz to Saudi Arabia's Red Sea workaround

Media Review: Yemeni strikes shift pressure from Hormuz to Saudi Arabia's Red Sea workaround

    Monday, July 27, 2026   No comments

Yemeni Armed Forces announce targeting critical Saudi Aramco Oil infrastructure in Jazan and Yanbu

Yemeni Armed Forces Spokesperson Brigadier General Yahya Saree has announced that military units successfully struck multiple sensitive and vital installations tied to the crude oil supply line running from eastern Saudi Arabia in Jazan to Yanbu.

The operation was executed using a swarm of drone aircraft and served as a direct retaliation against the Saudi-led coalition's ongoing violations of Yemeni airspace.

Economic cost

Tech Times reported on 26 July that Ansarallah's coordinated strikes on Saudi Aramco's Jazan refinery and Yanbu oil facilities have exposed the vulnerability of Saudi Arabia's alternative export route after the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. 

Satellite data from NASA's FIRMS and SoarAtlas confirmed major fires at Jazan, while Reuters, citing Greek security sources, reported that two ballistic missiles targeting Yanbu were intercepted by Saudi air defenses.

According to the report, Saudi Arabia has spent months rerouting crude exports through the East-West (Petroline) Pipeline to Yanbu to bypass Hormuz. 

However, because tankers departing Yanbu must still transit the Bab al-Mandab, where Ansarallah has declared a naval blockade, the strikes have effectively shifted, rather than eliminated, Saudi Arabia's strategic maritime vulnerability.

The report noted that Yanbu handled around 92% of Saudi Arabia's seaborne crude exports in June, citing Kpler data reported by AFP, making it the kingdom's primary export outlet during the Hormuz disruption. 

While the full extent of the damage remains unclear, Reuters reported that Asia-based trading sources had received reports of damage at Jazan, as Saudi Aramco had not yet issued an official assessment.

Tech Times added that the attacks pushed Brent crude back above $100 per barrel and intensified concerns over global energy supplies, warning that simultaneous disruptions at Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab could place a significant share of regional oil exports at risk and further tighten global energy markets.

The cisis may get worse before it is resolved

Over the weekend, Saudi Arabia reports intercepting drones attempting to target petroleum facilities

The official spokesperson for the Ministry of Defense, Major General Turki al-Maliki, stated that air defenses intercepted and destroyed a number of drones over the past few hours that attempted to target petroleum facilities in the Eastern Province and Riyadh.

Major General Maliki alleges that these attempts originated from Iraqi territory and were carried out by 'militias affiliated with Iran.'

Yemen Escalates 12-Year War with Massive Aramco Strikes and Reciprocal Siege on Saudi Arabia, Threatening Global Economy

Yemen Escalates 12-Year War with Massive Aramco Strikes and Reciprocal Siege on Saudi Arabia, Threatening Global Economy

    Saturday, July 25, 2026   No comments

 “A Blockade for a Blockade”

After twelve years of relentless conflict, the war in Yemen has crossed a critical threshold, transforming from a protracted regional siege into an imminent international economic crisis. In a landmark strategic shift, the Sanaa-based government announced a comprehensive reciprocal siege on Saudi ports and airports, vowing to maintain the blockade until the Saudi-led embargo on Yemen is completely lifted.

The dramatic escalation follows a series of devastating, coordinated military strikes targeting sensitive Saudi Aramco facilities. Analysts and global market watchers warn that the sustained targeting of the Kingdom’s oil and gas infrastructure will severely cripple the Saudi economy—a system heavily built on resource extraction—and deepen the existing global energy crisis, sending shockwaves through international supply chains and driving energy prices to unprecedented heights.

The military offensive was announced in a sweeping statement by Major General Yahya Saree, Spokesman for the Yemeni Armed Forces, who detailed the retaliation against recent Saudi airstrikes and outlined a new doctrine of mutual attrition.

Retaliation for Hodeidah and Kamaran Island

The escalation was triggered by a series of Saudi airstrikes targeting the Yemeni city and port of Hodeidah, as well as Kamaran Island. According to the Sanaa government, these strikes resulted in significant material and infrastructural damage, prompting immediate engagement by Yemeni air defenses.

In a direct and forceful response, the Yemeni Armed Forces launched what they described as "two qualitative military operations" deep into Saudi territory.

Detailing the strikes in his official statement, Spokesman Yahya Saree said:

"In its continued siege of the Yemeni people and in yet another violation of the sovereignty of the Republic of Yemen, the Saudi enemy regime launched a series of unjust and criminal airstrikes last night on the city and port of Hodeidah and Kamaran Island.

These airstrikes resulted in material and incorporeal damage, and air defenses engaged with a formation of enemy aircraft after they violated Yemeni airspace, preventing them from committing further crimes against this great nation.

In response to this blatant and criminal aggression, the Yemeni Armed Forces carried out two qualitative military operations.

The first targeted sensitive Aramco-affiliated facilities in Jizan with dozens of ballistic missiles and drones.

And the second operation targeted sensitive Aramco-affiliated facilities in Yanbu with a number of ballistic and cruise missiles and drones.

Both operations successfully achieved their objectives, thanks to God Almighty, with accurate and direct strikes.

This escalation of aggression confirms the Saudi enemy's determination to continue its siege of our people and its violation of our country's sovereignty. This is unacceptable, and our free, faithful, and valiant people will confront it with unwavering resolve and strength.

We in the Yemeni Armed Forces, relying on Allah, are committed to fulfilling our duty of honorable and responsible defense of our beloved country and our noble people—the people of faith and wisdom, the people of Islam and Arabism.

This criminal enemy will find nothing from us but resistance and confrontation from our righteous position, while it stands on the side of falsehood. Indeed, falsehood is ever bound to perish.

We affirm that the naval blockade imposed on the Saudi enemy remains in effect, in response to its aggression and its unjust blockade that has persisted for twelve years. We will not hesitate to expand our operations and escalate our actions based on developments in the coming hours and days, within the equation of a blockade for a blockade and an escalation for an escalation."

Will the US War on Iran, Aimed at Regime Change in Tehran, Result in Regime Change in Jordan and the GCC?

Will the US War on Iran, Aimed at Regime Change in Tehran, Result in Regime Change in Jordan and the GCC?

    Thursday, July 23, 2026   No comments

In the annals of modern geopolitical irony, few developments are as stark as the current trajectory of the US war on Iran. Initially championed by Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu with overt calls for the Iranian people to overthrow their government, the conflict has undergone a profound and dangerous shift. The stated objective is no longer regime change in Tehran, but rather the forced reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and the degradation of Iran’s military capabilities.

To achieve this, the United States is launching continuous attacks from military bases embedded within the territories of Jordan and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. In doing so, Washington has inadvertently placed its most vulnerable allies—non-representative monarchies with long-standing grievances among their own populations—directly in the crosshairs. Now, Iran is skillfully exploiting this dynamic, driving a wedge between these regimes and their people, and raising the very real specter of regime change in Amman, Kuwait City, and beyond.

The Sovereignty Paradox: Iran’s "Hearts and Minds" Offensive

Tehran’s strategy has evolved beyond mere military retaliation; it has launched a sophisticated psychological and information warfare campaign directed squarely at the Arab street. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has issued direct, impassioned statements to the peoples of Jordan and Kuwait, reframing Iran’s strikes not as violations of national sovereignty, but as legitimate acts of self-defense against an occupying force.

In a recent statement addressed to the "honorable and noble people of Jordan," the IRGC justified its lightning strikes against US bases on Jordanian soil—which reportedly destroyed a THAAD radar, a Patriot air defense system, and set ablaze fuel storage and helicopter maintenance hangars. The message was unequivocal:

"What is a US military base inside another country? It is a place where Americans, and anyone they choose, can enter and leave without the oversight of your border authorities... Order there is enforced by the US military police, not yours. Crimes committed there are judged by American judges, not your own... Therefore, it is the United States, not us, that has violated your territorial integrity and sovereignty."

To anchor this argument in raw emotional resonance, the IRGC invoked the tragedy of Minab, stating:

 "Yesterday, the grieving people of Minab buried the remaining body parts of their schoolchildren... 168 students who were martyred on the first day of this war in an attack carried out by the child-killing US military. It is our legal, religious, and rational right to target the aggressor against our country and the killer of our children wherever it launches its attacks from."

A parallel message was delivered to Kuwait, where the IRGC claimed drone strikes on a large US military equipment depot, a Patriot system, and an MQ-9 drone hangar at Ali al-Salem Air Base, alongside troop housing at Camp Udairi (Camp Buehring). Once again, the narrative was carefully calibrated: Iran respects Kuwait’s sovereignty; it is the unchecked US military footprint that violates it.

The Jordanian Powder Keg

Nowhere is this dynamic more volatile than in Jordan. The Hashemite Kingdom’s government has long been perceived by its populace as helpless to alter US policy, particularly regarding Israeli violence against Palestinians. This impotence has severely weakened the regime’s legitimacy, a fact exacerbated by the demographic reality that roughly 65% of Jordan’s population has Palestinian heritage or direct connections to Palestine.

The disconnect between the Jordanian street and the palace was laid bare following recent Israeli provocations. When Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, alongside Knesset members and settlers, stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque under Israeli police protection, the Jordanian Foreign Ministry issued a stern condemnation, calling it a "blatant violation" of the mosque’s historic and legal status. For the average Jordanian, verbal condemnations ring hollow while US military assets in their country continue to facilitate a broader regional war, and while their government remains unable to protect Islamic holy sites from desecration. By hosting US forces that Iran now actively targets, the Jordanian monarchy is increasingly viewed not as a protector of national sovereignty, but as a complicit facilitator of foreign aggression.

The GCC Dilemma

The GCC states face a similar, if not more complex, vulnerability. Countries like Kuwait and Bahrain host significant Shia communities and populations in the GCC generally are deeply, historically sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. The presence of US bases has always been a quiet source of domestic tension, managed through a combination of economic patronage and political suppression.

Iran’s messaging directly punctures this fragile social contract. By framing US bases as extraterritorial colonies where "American law prevails, not your national law," Tehran is handing local opposition groups a powerful nationalist and religious narrative. If US bases are the launchpads for attacks on Iran, and Iran retaliates against those bases, the resulting collateral damage, economic disruption, and perception of humiliation will inevitably be directed at the monarchs who permitted the bases to exist in the first place.

The Crumbling US Domestic Front

This geopolitical boomerang effect is being accelerated by a rapid collapse in US domestic support for the war. President Trump, who once boasted of unwavering backing from his base, is now facing a severe political reckoning.

According to a POLITICO / Public First poll published on July 22, 2026, support for the war on Iran has fallen sharply among Trump’s core MAGA supporters. Just over a third now believe the economic price of the war is justified—a precipitous 13-point drop from 50 percent in May. Another 37 percent of self-identified MAGA voters stated they would back continued US involvement only if costs stop rising, while around one-fifth said the US should end the war no matter the costs. Opposition is even deeper among Trump voters outside the MAGA bloc.

The primary catalyst for this disillusionment is economic pain and mounting casualties. With gas prices having climbed to over $4 per gallon since Trump returned to office, 57 percent of MAGA voters and 63 percent of non-MAGA Trump voters directly blame the war.

The human cost is also becoming impossible to white-wash. At least 18 US soldiers have been killed since the start of the war, with wounded personnel surpassing 500. Just days ago, Trump attended a dignified transfer ceremony at Dover Air Force Base for four US soldiers killed in Iranian attacks: three in a missile strike on the Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan, and a fourth at Erbil Air Base in Iraq. Right before the ceremony, Trump warned that Iran would "pay a big price," but the rhetoric increasingly rings hollow against the backdrop of American coffins.

Behind closed doors, the playbook of endless escalation has been replaced by White House panic. A source close to the administration told POLITICO that the government is at a "maximum level of frustration," with senior figures accepting that "the victory Trump wants cannot be won because the public will not back the escalation required. We've got more dead Americans and a politically impossible situation." With Trump’s approval ratings hovering near the lowest levels of his political career, the Republican Party faces the very real risk of losing its House majority and possibly the Senate in the upcoming November midterms.

The Irony of Hegemony

The United States entered this conflict with the maximalist goal of regime change in Iran, openly encouraging the Iranian people to rise up. The mechanics of modern warfare and the realities of regional geography have turned that logic on its head. By relying on the territories of non-representative, deeply unpopular monarchies to wage war, the US has transformed those regimes into strategic liabilities.

Iran, far from being isolated, has seized the narrative high ground. By positioning itself as the defender of regional sovereignty against American imperialism, Tehran is successfully weaponizing the legitimate grievances of the Jordanian and GCC publics. If the war continues to drag on, exacting a heavy toll in American lives, regional infrastructure, and economic stability, the ultimate irony may be realized: the US war intended to topple the Islamic Republic could instead become the catalyst that brings down the very monarchies Washington relies upon to project its power in the Middle East.

Media Review, Media Bias: War and Language

Media Review, Media Bias: War and Language

    Sunday, July 19, 2026   No comments

How Arab State Media Narrate Conflict and Risk Their Own Survival

In the theater of modern warfare, language is a weapon of geopolitical alignment. Since the Arab Spring of 2011, state-controlled and state-aligned media across the Arab world have increasingly functioned as extensions of foreign policy. By carefully curating their lexicons, these outlets signal bias, legitimize certain military actions, and delegitimize others. Today, as the region grapples with the fallout of the US and Israeli war on Iran, the selective outrage embedded in Gulf media narratives is not only distorting reality but also planting the seeds of domestic instability.

The blueprint for this linguistic weaponization was clearly established during the Yemen conflict and the subsequent 2017 Gulf diplomatic crisis. When the Saudi-led coalition intervened in Yemen, a stark divergence in media framing emerged. Saudi-aligned outlets consistently employed highly charged, valorizing terminology: Saudi casualties were exclusively referred to as "شهداء" (martyrs), while Yemeni casualties were described as "أشخاص قُتلوا على يد القوات السعودية العادلة" (persons killed by the righteous Saudi forces).

In contrast, Aljazeera, based in Qatar, adopted a more neutral, journalistic lexicon, consistently using the word "قتلى" (killed) for casualties on all sides. This seemingly minor semantic difference carried immense political weight. It challenged the moral absolutism of the Saudi narrative. The threat this posed to Riyadh’s geopolitical project was so profound that, in 2017, Saudi Arabia and its allies issued a list of demands to Qatar to end the blockade, prominently featuring the immediate and permanent shutdown of Al Jazeera. That demand, as history has shown, went nowhere, but it established a lasting precedent: in the eyes of certain Arab states, neutral language is an act of political defiance.

This pattern has reached a dangerous apex in the current US and Israeli war on Iran, a campaign executed and supported by US troops stationed in Gulf States and Jordan. A review of recent headlines from Saudi-aligned and Gulf-centric media outlets, such as Asharq Al-Awsat, reveals a meticulously crafted narrative of selective outrage.

When reporting on Iranian military actions, these outlets deploy a lexicon of moral condemnation. Recent headlines from July 2026 describe Iranian actions as:

• "العدوان الإيراني الآثم" (The sinful Iranian aggression)
• "اعتداءات إيرانية جديدة" (New Iranian assaults)
• "نهج عدواني ممنهج" (A systematic hostile approach)
• "اعتداءاتها الجوية الإيرانية الغادرة" (Treacherous Iranian air assaults)

These phrases are designed to frame Iran as a rogue actor violating international law and threatening Arab sovereignty. However, when these same media outlets report on US and Israeli military actions against Iranian territory, the vocabulary shifts dramatically. US and Israeli bombardments are routinely sanitized as "غارات" (strikes) or "هجمات" (attacks). The word "عدوان" (aggression) is conspicuously absent.

This linguistic sanitization serves a clear political purpose: to normalize the presence of US military forces in the region and to frame the US-Israeli campaign as a legitimate, defensive, or corrective measure, rather than what international legal experts have identified it to be.

The Gulf media narrative stands in direct contradiction to the consensus of the international legal community. The war on Iran has been widely documented as lacking proper legal authority and factual justification.

In March 2026, UN Human Rights experts issued a stark press release, explicitly denouncing the US and Israeli military assaults on Iran and Lebanon as "flagrant violations of international law" and unequivocally labeling them an "act of aggression." The experts warned that the unprovoked attacks, carried out while negotiations were ongoing, constitute a dangerous precedent of impunity.

Furthermore, a landmark letter published by Just Security, signed by over 100 prominent US-based international law experts and professors, condemned the US role in the conflict. The letter detailed how the initiation of the campaign was a "clear violation of the United Nations Charter" (jus ad bellum), as it lacked Security Council authorization and was not an act of self-defense against an imminent threat. The experts also raised alarms over jus in bello violations, citing strikes on civilian infrastructure, including schools and energy facilities, and condemned dangerous rhetoric from US officials dismissing the rules of engagement as "stupid."

While UN experts and legal scholars universally apply the term "aggression" to the US-Israeli campaign, Gulf state media remain silent on this legal reality, choosing instead to act as a linguistic shield for their powerful allies.

The Domestic Boomerang: When Populations Stop Listening

This deliberate cognitive dissonance carries severe domestic risks. The Arab landscape has changed dramatically since 2011. Populations are no longer captive audiences to state-controlled media. With widespread access to satellite television, social media, and independent digital journalism, citizens can easily compare the hyperbolic condemnation of Iran with the sanitized coverage of US actions.

This selective outrage is eroding the credibility of state institutions. Nowhere is this more acute than in Jordan. The Hashemite Kingdom has found itself in a precarious position, hosting US troops and participating in air defense efforts against Iranian projectiles, such as the recent rocket attacks on the Muwaffaq al-Salti airbase. While the Jordanian government frames its actions as defensive sovereignty, a significant majority of the Jordanian public views this blind support for a foreign-led military campaign as fundamentally misaligned with national interests.

By aligning its media narrative and military posture with a war that is widely perceived as illegal and unjust, the Jordanian government is risking severe domestic backlash. The potential for public uprising is no longer a fringe theory; it is a tangible consequence of a populace that feels its government is sacrificing its well-being for geopolitical patrons who do not reciprocate the loyalty.

The Ultimate Strategic Blunder

Language matters, especially during times of war. Words shape perception, and perception dictates political legitimacy. The Gulf states and Jordan, by weaponizing language to show selective outrage, are engaging in a dangerous gamble. They risk losing what is left of their standing among their own people, who are increasingly adept at seeing through the propaganda.

There is a profound, tragic irony at the heart of this conflict. The US and Israeli war on Iran was explicitly designed, in part, to foment regime change in Tehran. Yet, by acting as complicit enablers—both militarily and linguistically—the supporting Arab states are exposing their own populations to the radicalizing effects of war, economic strain, and perceived national humiliation.

When the outcome of this war is not regime change in Iran as now stated by even those who started the war, but rather the destabilization, weakening, or even the fall of regimes in the Gulf and Jordan, it will stand as the biggest strategic blunder in modern Middle Eastern history. The supporters of this war may find that the linguistic and political tools they used to target their adversaries have ultimately written the epitaph of their own rule.

  

The Aftermath of the Iran Conflict is Redrawing Southwest Asia and North Africa

The Aftermath of the Iran Conflict is Redrawing Southwest Asia and North Africa

    Thursday, June 25, 2026   No comments

 Forging a New Equilibrium

In the wake of the recent US-Israeli war on Iran, the geopolitical tectonic plates of the Middle East are shifting once again. According to diplomatic sources, Saudi Arabia is preparing to host a landmark summit aimed at reconciling Gulf states with Tehran. Crucially, these talks are being organized independently of the ongoing negotiations between Washington and the Iranian government.

This diplomatic maneuver signals a profound transformation. The recent war, while devastating, appears to have catalyzed a new era of regional pragmatism. As the dust settles, the conflict is fundamentally altering how SWANA approaches its own security, and in doing so, it is sending ripple effects across the global order.

The End of External Dependence?

For decades, the security architecture of the Persian Gulf was heavily reliant on the United States. However, the recent conflict demonstrated the limits and vulnerabilities of external security guarantees. By organizing a reconciliation summit separate from US-Iran negotiations, Riyadh is sending a clear message: the Gulf states are taking ownership of their immediate neighborhood.

The war underscored a harsh reality for the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. Regardless of political or ideological differences, a prolonged conflict on their doorstep threatens their coastlines, disrupts vital shipping lanes like the Strait of Hormuz, and endangers critical infrastructure. For Saudi Arabia, whose ambitious Vision 2030 relies heavily on foreign investment, tourism, and regional stability, a hostile or heavily sanctioned Iran next door is an economic liability.

Similarly, for Iran, the economic and infrastructural toll of the recent conflict has made regional de-escalation an absolute necessity. The upcoming talks in Riyadh represent a mutual recognition among regional powers that they cannot afford perpetual hostility. The imperative for survival and economic recovery has overridden ideological rigidity.

A Shift Toward Regional Realpolitik

The decision to host these talks in Saudi Arabia cements Riyadh’s transition from a traditional US ally into an independent regional broker. Following the Chinese-brokered détente between Riyadh and Tehran in 2023, the recent war tested that fragile relationship. The fact that Saudi Arabia is now stepping up to host a broader Gulf-Iran summit suggests that the 2023 agreement has matured into a more resilient, institutionalized framework for conflict resolution.

This shift toward "regional realpolitik" means that Middle Eastern powers are increasingly willing to compartmentalize their disputes. They are moving away from zero-sum proxy conflicts and toward transactional diplomacy focused on mutual security, trade routes, and energy cooperation. If successful, this could lead to a localized security framework that manages tensions without requiring external military intervention.

Global Ripple Effects: Energy and Multipolarity

The changing dynamics in the Gulf have immediate and far-reaching implications for the rest of the world.

First and foremost is the issue of global energy security. The recent conflict inevitably sent shockwaves through global oil and gas markets, highlighting the world's continued vulnerability to disruptions in the Persian Gulf. A successful Gulf-Iran reconciliation, brokered by the states that sit on the world's largest energy reserves, could lead to a more stable, cooperative approach to energy transit. If regional powers can guarantee the security of the Strait of Hormuz collectively, it reduces the global risk premium on energy and lessens the strategic burden on Western navies.

Secondly, this diplomatic shift accelerates the transition toward a multipolar world order. As Gulf states demonstrate their ability to manage their own post-war reconciliation, the global perception of the Middle East changes. It is no longer viewed solely as a chessboard for superpower rivalry, but as a region with its own agency. This autonomy is likely to attract other global powers—such as China, the European Union, and India—who are primarily interested in trade, reconstruction, and energy stability rather than military entanglements. These nations will likely look to Riyadh and Tehran as the primary gatekeepers for regional access.

A Fragile but Necessary New Normal

The road ahead is undoubtedly fraught with challenges. Decades of mistrust, unresolved territorial disputes, and the lingering trauma of the recent war will not be erased by a single summit in Riyadh. Furthermore, the outcomes of the separate US-Iran negotiations will inevitably cast a long shadow over the Gulf's internal discussions.

Nevertheless, the upcoming talks represent a critical inflection point. The US-Israeli war on Iran, rather than permanently fracturing the region, has paradoxically forced its inhabitants to confront the unsustainability of endless conflict. By choosing diplomacy over continued militarization, and regional autonomy over external dependence, the Gulf states are attempting to forge a new economic and security block. If they succeed, the world will have to adapt to a region that is no longer just a theater for global power struggles, but an independent architect of its own future.

GCC States Defying Washington's Vision and Leaving "Greater Israel" in Tatters

GCC States Defying Washington's Vision and Leaving "Greater Israel" in Tatters

    Saturday, May 30, 2026   No comments

Gulf Power Shift Looms

The Middle East, Southwest Asia, and North Africa stand at a pivotal inflection point. What was once framed as a unipolar moment for U.S.-backed regional architecture—anchored by the Abraham Accords, Gulf security partnerships, and a contained Iran—is unraveling. A profound power shift is underway, one that defies the transactional diplomacy of the Trump era and exposes the fragility of Netanyahu's vision of a "Greater Israel" integrated into a stable, U.S.-led regional order. At the heart of this transformation lies not a monolithic "Arab world," but a fractured Gulf, where competing monarchies pursue divergent strategies, often at cross-purposes, reshaping the regional order from within.

The Illusion of Gulf Unity

The foundational premise of recent U.S. Middle East policy—that the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states could be consolidated into a cohesive anti-Iran, pro-normalization bloc—has collapsed under the weight of intrinsic rivalries. There is no unity among the Gulf monarchies; rather, ongoing power dynamics suggest a broader, more chaotic transformation of the regional order.

The most consequential fissure runs between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Once close allies in the 2015 Yemen intervention, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi have drifted into open strategic competition. Their divergence is not merely tactical but philosophical: Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) increasingly favors diplomatic accommodation and risk mitigation, while President Mohamed bin Zayed (MBZ) champions confrontational deterrence and transformative military action. This ideological split has manifested across multiple theaters, turning proxy conflicts into arenas for Gulf competition.

Yemen: The First Fracture

The Yemeni civil war laid bare the rift. While both states initially joined the Saudi-led coalition against Ansar Allah (the Houthis), the UAE significantly scaled back its direct military role in 2019, pursuing a distinct southern strategy. Today, Riyadh backs the internationally recognized Presidential Leadership Council, while Abu Dhabi supports the rival Southern Transitional Council (STC), a separatist force with its own ambitions along the Red Sea coast. The UAE's pursuit of influence in Aden, Mukalla, and Socotra has repeatedly clashed with Saudi security priorities, revealing competing visions for the Arabian Peninsula's southern flank.

Sudan: The New Arena

The Sudanese civil war has become the latest proxy theater. Saudi Arabia supports the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), while the UAE backs the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). This alignment is not accidental: Abu Dhabi's support for the RSF is part of a broader transnational strategy linking gold flows, port access, and influence networks across the Sahel and Horn of Africa. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has coordinated more closely with Turkey on Yemen, Sudan, and Somalia—a pragmatic recalibration aimed at counterbalancing Emirati influence. The war in Sudan thus reflects not just local power struggles, but the externalization of Gulf rivalries.

The Red Sea and Horn of Africa: A Strategic Chessboard

Beyond direct conflict zones, competition extends to the maritime domain. The UAE has expanded its footprint in Somaliland, Ethiopia, and Eritrea, securing port access and military facilities. Saudi Arabia, wary of Emirati encirclement, has deepened ties with Egypt and Sudan while exploring partnerships with Turkey. This scramble for influence along one of the world's most critical shipping lanes underscores how Gulf states now view regional security through a lens of competitive positioning rather than collective defense.

The Israel Factor: Normalization's Unintended Consequences

The Abraham Accords, heralded in 2020 as a diplomatic breakthrough, have paradoxically complicated Gulf alignments rather than simplifying them. The UAE was the first to normalize relations with Israel, seeking technology transfer, intelligence cooperation, and U.S. security guarantees. Yet this move has generated friction within the Gulf. Saudi officials have reportedly characterized the UAE as Israel's "Trojan horse" in the region—a partner whose alignment with Jerusalem could draw the Gulf into conflicts not of its choosing.

The ongoing U.S.-Israel-Iran confrontation has sharpened these tensions. While the UAE has openly coordinated with Israel on missile defense and reportedly conducted retaliatory strikes on Iranian territory, Saudi Arabia has maintained a more cautious posture. Riyadh's reluctance to join overt military operations reflects both domestic political constraints and a strategic calculation that escalation threatens its economic diversification agenda under Vision 2030. The result is a Gulf divided on the most fundamental question: how to respond to the region's most volatile confrontation.

Personal Enmity and Strategic Divergence

Beneath the geopolitical analysis lies a human dimension: the reported breakdown in relations between MBS and MBZ. Once close collaborators, the two leaders now embody competing visions for the Gulf's future. What is undeniable is that their divergent risk tolerances and strategic cultures have translated into tangible policy differences, from OPEC production decisions to approaches toward Iran and Islamist movements.

Qatar: The Gulf's "Black Sheep" or Strategic Hedge?

Qatar's distinct trajectory further complicates the regional picture. During the 2017–2021 blockade imposed by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt, Doha weathered isolation by deepening ties with Turkey and Iran. The rift was driven by Qatar's support for Islamist networks, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood—a movement viewed by other Gulf monarchies as an existential threat to dynastic rule.

Today, Qatar has emerged not as a pariah but as an indispensable mediator. Its hosting of U.S. military facilities, its dialogue channels with Tehran, and its role in Afghanistan and Gaza negotiations have granted Doha disproportionate influence. Turkey's strategic partnership with Qatar—anchored in shared support for political Sunni Islam and mutual suspicion of Saudi-Emirati ambitions—has created a counterweight to the Riyadh-Abu Dhabi axis. This Turkey-Qatar nexus represents not merely an alliance of convenience but a competing vision for regional order, one that privileges diplomatic engagement and ideological flexibility over hardline containment.

The Four-Way Contest: Who Leads the Region?

The fragmentation of Gulf unity has opened space for a multipolar competition among four principal contenders:

Turkey, positioning itself as the heir to Ottoman-era influence and a champion of political Islam, leverages military capabilities, economic ties, and ideological appeal to extend its reach from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Horn of Africa.

Saudi Arabia, as custodian of Islam's holiest sites and the region's largest economy, seeks to reclaim leadership through a blend of religious authority, economic statecraft, and cautious diplomacy—most notably in its China-brokered rapprochement with Iran.

Israel, despite military prowess and technological advantage, faces mounting security and economic pressures. Its vision of integration into a stable regional order is challenged by persistent Palestinian resistance, Iranian retaliation, and the limits of Arab normalization without a political horizon for the Palestinians.

Iran, a state-civilization with deep historical roots and a network of proxy allies, has demonstrated resilience despite sanctions and military pressure. Its proposed Gulf security framework—excluding Western powers and emphasizing regional ownership—has reportedly garnered interest from Saudi Arabia and Oman.

This four-way contest is not a zero-sum game but a complex interplay of alignment, hedging, and opportunism. Smaller Gulf states—Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman—navigate these currents with varying degrees of autonomy, often prioritizing regime survival over ideological alignment.

Historical Context and the Path to Transformation

To understand the present moment, one must recall the regional balance of the 1960s–1970s, when Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar were relatively weak states surrounded by revolutionary republics: Egypt under Nasser, Ba'athist Iraq and Syria, and Pahlavi Iran. Subsequent wars—the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf Wars, U.S. interventions post-9/11, and the 2011 Arab Spring—reshaped this order, inadvertently empowering U.S.-backed players: Israel and the Gulf monarchies.

Today, however, the assumptions underpinning that order are eroding. U.S. regional bases have proven vulnerable; Israel faces unprecedented security challenges; and Gulf economies, despite vast sovereign wealth, confront the dual pressures of energy transition and regional instability. The recent Iran war has accelerated this reassessment, exposing the limits of external security guarantees and the costs of fragmented responses.

Toward a New Gulf-Centered Order?

Amid this uncertainty, a potential pathway for transformation is emerging. Iran has proposed a Gulf security framework that excludes Western powers, emphasizing regional dialogue and mutual non-aggression. Reports suggest Saudi Arabia and Oman have engaged constructively with this initiative, particularly regarding the security of the Strait of Hormuz. This points to a possible emerging balance centered on Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Oman—a triad that could marginalize more confrontational actors like the UAE and Israel while diminishing the roles of smaller, more vulnerable Gulf states.

Such a scenario would represent a profound shift: from a U.S.-guaranteed order to a regionally negotiated equilibrium. It would require Saudi Arabia to reconcile its rivalry with Iran while managing its competition with the UAE; it would demand that Iran moderate its proxy activities in exchange for regional acceptance; and it would necessitate that external powers, including the United States and China, adapt to a more autonomous Gulf diplomacy.

Turkey's role in this configuration remains uncertain. While Ankara possesses significant military and economic leverage, its ambitions in the Arab world face structural limits: linguistic, cultural, and historical barriers that constrain its ability to dominate Gulf affairs. Qatar's position is similarly ambiguous: its mediation credentials grant it influence, but its dependence on gas exports and vulnerability to regional pressure limit its strategic autonomy.

Beyond Binary Narratives

The changing Middle East defies simplistic narratives of "Sunni vs. Shiite," "authoritarianism vs. democracy," or "U.S. allies vs. axis of resistance." What is unfolding is a complex, multi-layered reordering driven by intra-Gulf competition, the limits of external patronage, and the resilience of regional actors. The vision of a unified Gulf bloc integrated with Israel under U.S. auspices has given way to a more fragmented, contested, and ultimately more authentic regional politics.

For policymakers in Washington, Brussels, and beyond, the lesson is clear: sustainable stability in Southwest Asia and North Africa cannot be imposed from outside. It must emerge from inclusive regional dialogue that acknowledges the legitimate security concerns of all states—including Iran—while creating mechanisms for managing competition without escalation. The Gulf power shift looms not as a crisis to be managed, but as an opportunity to reimagine a regional order rooted in sovereignty, dialogue, and shared interest. Whether that opportunity is seized will determine not only the future of the Middle East, but the trajectory of global energy security, migration flows, and great-power competition for decades to come.