Iran’s retaliation after its leadership was wiped out misfired, provoking Gulf states and Israel instead of isolating the U.S., and the region now looks more united against Tehran than ever.

The immediate aftermath of the strike that killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and senior commanders forced Iran into a reactionary posture that made its isolation worse. Rather than creating pressure on Washington by turning Gulf partners against the United States, Tehran’s drone and missile volleys drove those same partners into alignment with America and Israel. The result is a regional backlash that strengthens deterrence against Iranian aggression.

Iran appears to have calculated that hitting wealthy Gulf monarchies would compel a rapid diplomatic reset, or at least create enough economic pain to force negotiations. That calculation failed when Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Doha and Manama suffered damage and civilian casualties, and local governments concluded the threat could not be tolerated. Gulf rulers set aside rivalries and grievances; short-term politics gave way to a shared interest in stability and protection of critical infrastructure.

The Iranian regime, decapitated in the first hours of the U.S.-Israeli campaign that started on Saturday, has responded by striking at least nine countries across the Middle East, unleashing a truly regional war. 

The apparent calculation was that, by targeting rich Persian Gulf monarchies that hold sway with the Trump administration, Tehran could force Washington and Israel into a rapid de-escalation. 

Iran’s expectation was that, by squeezing oil shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and disrupting air traffic, it would cause unbearable pain to the Gulf nations that depend so much on expatriate workers, tourism and overseas trade. 

So far, this calculus seems to have backfired. Gulf states, rattled by volleys of Iranian drones and missiles targeting their hotels, ports and airports, are concluding the Iranian peril must be confronted. Rather than seeking an offramp, the prevailing mood in the Gulf—at least for now—is that the Iranian regime can’t be allowed to get away with this unprecedented onslaught on its neighbors.

The subplot to Iran’s nuclear ambitions was Saudi Arabia’s declaration some 20 years ago that it would start its own nuclear weapons program if Tehran acquired the bomb. No one wants a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. 

[…] 

Iran has struck all six of the oil-rich Gulf Arab states, including Oman, which had mediated nuclear talks between Tehran and the Trump administration. It also hit Jordan, Iraq and Israel. At first, all the Gulf states publicly opposed the U.S.-Israeli assault on the Iranian regime, which has already resulted in the death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the killing of many Iranian military and intelligence commanders.

The mood changed quickly once the brunt of the Iranian response targeted cities such as Dubai and Abu Dhabi in the U.A.E., Doha in Qatar, and Manama in Bahrain, inflicting widespread damage to infrastructure and civilian casualties. In the U.A.E. alone, Iran killed three people and injured 58 after firing 165 ballistic missiles and 541 drones, most of which have been intercepted, according to the Defense Ministry. 

[…] 

“Many people in the Gulf woke up Saturday pissed off at the United States and Israel, and went to sleep pissed off at Iran,” said William Wechsler, director of Middle East programs at the Atlantic Council in Washington and a former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense. 

Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E., which were engaged in an acrimonious diplomatic quarrel until the weekend, put their disagreements aside for now as they showed a united front against Iran. 

The religious and geopolitical fault lines between Saudi Arabia and Iran make their alignment with the United States predictable in a crisis. The Saudis are Sunni, Iran is majority Shiite, and those differences are more than theological; they shape strategic competition across the region. When Iranian weapons started landing in civilian areas that matter to Gulf economies, the political calculus shifted toward containment and cooperation with Western partners.

Tehran may have hoped to leverage chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz to extract concessions, but that kind of brinksmanship risks strangling the Gulf states that Iran thought it could intimidate. Gulf leaders depend on foreign investment, tourism and expatriate labor; attacks on ports and airports threaten the very livelihoods those regimes protect. Faced with direct strikes, those governments moved from rhetorical displeasure into active cooperation with the U.S. security posture.

Before the strikes, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman reportedly urged President Trump to take military action against Iran, pushing for a decisive response to Tehran’s provocations. That private lobbying, combined with public pressure from Israel, helped shape the administration’s choice to act. The sequence of events underlines how close coordination among regional allies and the U.S. can force strategic outcomes that punish bad actors and deter future aggression.

President Donald Trump launched Saturday’s wide-ranging attack on Iran after a weeks-long lobbying effort by an unusual pair of U.S. allies in the Middle East — Israel and Saudi Arabia — according to four people familiar with the matter, as Israeli and U.S. forces teamed to topple Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei after nearly four decades in power. 

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman made multiple private phone calls to Trump over the past month advocating a U.S. attack, despite his public support for a diplomatic solution, the four people said. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, continued his long-running public campaign for U.S. strikes against what he views as an existential enemy of his country. 

The combined effort helped lead Trump to order a massive aerial campaign against Iran’s leadership and military, which in its initial hour led to the death of Khamenei and several other senior Iranian officials. 

With the Iranian leadership largely eliminated, the regime is fractured and some say it is effectively leaderless in the short term. That vacuum creates risks of chaos, but it also removes the central command that directed years of regional destabilization. From a Republican viewpoint, decisive action that degrades Tehran’s ability to project power is the hard-nosed option that prevents longer, costlier conflicts later.

The new regional alignment is unlikely to be temporary theater. Gulf states now have a stronger incentive to shore up defenses, share intelligence and cooperate with the U.S. to prevent future Iranian reprisals. If Washington keeps forging durable security ties and holds to a clear deterrence strategy, Tehran’s ability to destabilize its neighbors will continue to decline. The message is plain: aggressive moves that target neighbors will only deepen Iran’s isolation and strengthen those committed to stopping its expansion.