Apart from the human tragedy, the American and Israeli attacks on Iran and the Iranian strikes against Gulf states that have continued relentlessly since February 28, 2026, have starkly revealed an absence: the Gulf fundamentally lacked a security architecture.
The semblance of order that existed before the outbreak of this war relied on a polarization of security perception and threats by different states in the region. On one side, the Iranian threat against the Gulf Cooperation Council, and on the other, the American threat stemming from Washington’s presence in the region dictated a fragile balance based on deterrence, external protection, and occasional discreet diplomacy between Iran and Arab states.
This balance is now a thing of the past.
The threat is no longer just perceived: all shores of the Gulf are now ablaze.
The question is no longer whether a new regional security framework is necessary, but who the actors will be, how they will interact, and whether this new architecture could be purely regional – or if it should expand.
Restoring Trust and Deterrence
The Iranian attacks have caused a deep rupture in Tehran’s relations with Gulf Arab states and have eroded the cautious trust that had begun to build through regional diplomacy over the past five years. Rebuilding this trust will be difficult and time-consuming. Whatever the political configuration in Tehran post-war, re-establishing relations with Gulf states will inevitably become one of the most important foreign policy priorities for any future Iranian government – even if it is a consideration that the new leaders of the Islamic Republic have, for now, put aside.
Prior to the war, expert discussions on the future of regional security architecture in the Gulf – in which we participated – mainly focused on a new matrix encompassing national security in energy, food, health, and environmental security.
All shores of the Gulf are now ablaze. The question is no longer whether a new regional security framework is necessary, but who the actors will be.
Mehran Haghirian and Mohammed Baharoon
The war that began on February 28 will require an even broader reassessment of Gulf security arrangements. This new analytical framework will not only address the capacity to repel attacks: it must also tackle the issue of deterrence itself.
One possible consequence of this new paradigm would be to make the Gulf a highly secure region.
The Gulf Cooperation Council will inevitably engage in short-term collective security coordination, which could include pooling interceptors, investing in next-generation air defense systems, strengthening crisis communication mechanisms, or setting up security arrangements mirroring NATO’s model.
These efforts are likely to become a central element of the region’s trajectory in the near future, especially in the context of expanding military ties with a range of countries that have proven to be reliable partners.
Beyond the Gulf: Geopolitics of Major Coalitions
However, contrary to expectations, the resumption of discussions on a strategic alliance in the Middle East bringing Gulf states, Israel, and the United States together may not be an automatic consequence of the war.
While Iranian attacks could have accelerated such a rapprochement, Gulf countries have so far rejected this option and may continue to avoid it as it could lead them into a state of permanent war with a regional neighbor. Gulf states are equally concerned about the Islamic Republic as they are about Israel due to their respective regional ambitions – as both powers have shown that brutal military action is their preferred method of conflict resolution. In contrast, the Gulf Cooperation Council’s tradition of strategic patience and restraint means it does not believe that military power alone leads to stability.
In the Middle East, a new order after this war would also not mean a complete U.S. withdrawal. It also would not entail, for those with ties to Israel, a complete reversal of that relationship.
It will be a delicate adjustment to establish a security architecture that not only strengthens each state’s autonomy but also takes into account their complex network of geopolitical links and interests.
At the same time, the war has underscored how closely linked Gulf security and stability are to global strategic interests: any future regional framework will almost certainly involve external actors whose economic and military presence in the region is already deeply entrenched.
China’s role as a major energy importer from the Gulf, a key player in global trade networks, and a mediator in the negotiated détente between Iran and Saudi Arabia ensures that Beijing has a direct interest in preserving maritime routes, energy infrastructure, and political stability in the region. The European Union and the United Kingdom have also strengthened their strategic and economic engagement in the region. Russia, which has already presented proposals for collective security at the United Nations Security Council, may seek to become more involved as debates on regional security evolve. India, Japan, South Korea, Brazil, and other countries also have growing interests in Gulf stability.
A new Middle Eastern order, even after this war, does not signify a total U.S. withdrawal.
Mehran Haghirian and Mohammed Baharoon
The diplomatic response to Iran’s attack on Gulf Cooperation Council member states has been global – particularly with United Nations Security Council Resolution 2817 demanding Iran cease its attacks, co-sponsored by 135 countries. This resolution sets the stage for a global response now beginning to take shape in discussions aimed at forming an alliance or consortium to maintain freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.
Such frameworks could resemble initiatives similar to the global coalition in the war on terror – exacerbating military polarization in the region and locking both shores of the Gulf in long-term animosity that will almost certainly lead to further instability, chaos, and global repercussions.
What the war has revealed is not merely military vulnerability: it has exposed the limits of deterrence and diplomacy, as well as the fragility of food supply, water desalination systems, airspace, maritime transport, logistics, digital infrastructure, banking reliability, and tourism. A diplomatic resolution of the conflict could lay the foundations for an inclusive, realistic, and regionally anchored security framework. The first step, however, is to better understand the objectives, not just the means.
Ends Rather than Means
Previous proposals for dialogue, cooperation, and regional security have all been dismissed as insufficient.
Iran had proposed the “Ormuz Peace Initiative.” Russia has repeatedly put forward its idea of collective security. China suggested transforming the region into a “security oasis.” The Gulf Cooperation Council itself had presented the “GCC Vision for Regional Security in 2024,” which remains to this day the most comprehensive articulation for cooperation in the region. While none of these proposals garnered sufficient interest at the time, they all reflected the acknowledgment of the inadequacy of the existing order. There has never been a serious collective effort to replace it. The war now necessitates a change in direction.
Before significant de-escalation can occur, a new reference point must be established.
Yesterday’s red lines have now been crossed.
The region needs a collective vision of security that is not based on political consensus but on overlapping national interests.
Without this, any de-escalation or diplomatic resolution of the conflict will only delay the resurgence of tensions or war, without resolving the issues that have now come to the surface.
Deterrence will not be solely military. It must be based on a network of interests that constitute lifelines for the region and an understanding that these – such as the Strait of Hormuz – are also vital arteries for the entire world.
Under the fire of missiles and drones, it is challenging to see these discussions move forward today.
But ultimately, means are of little importance: only the ends should guide our path to the future.
