By Sadaf Sundas Riaz — SCN NEWS
MANAMA — U.S. President Donald Trump's renewed threat of military strikes against Iran has alarmed Washington's Gulf allies, raising fears that another confrontation could expose their military installations, energy facilities and civilian infrastructure to Iranian retaliation. Senior regional officials attending the Manama Dialogue security conference in Bahrain warned that another escalation could prove more destructive than previous exchanges, while diplomats from several countries continued efforts to prevent renewed fighting. The growing concern reflects a difficult reality for Gulf governments that depend on American military protection but have limited influence over decisions in Washington that could expose their territories to attack.
Trump has suggested that the United States could resume military operations against Iran after Tuesday's congressional elections, although American officials say no final decision has been announced. Four European officials told Reuters that Washington had assembled sufficient military assets in the region to launch strikes at short notice, potentially targeting facilities associated with Iran's nuclear programme. The White House maintained that military and diplomatic options remained available, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the administration would prefer a negotiated settlement. Those positions have left Gulf governments preparing for the possibility of renewed hostilities even as regional mediators continue their diplomatic efforts.
The prospect of another confrontation has intensified questions about the security arrangements that have defined relations between the United States and Gulf monarchies for decades. American forces maintain bases, naval facilities and other military installations across the region, providing a strategic presence intended to deter external threats and reassure Washington's partners. However, Iranian missile and drone attacks during earlier phases of the conflict demonstrated that those installations could also become targets, exposing nearby civilian communities and essential infrastructure to the consequences of military escalation. The resulting debate concerns not only whether American forces can defeat Iranian attacks but also whether their presence can prevent the countries hosting them from becoming part of a wider war.
Bahrain illustrates the dilemma particularly clearly because it hosts the headquarters of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, a central component of American maritime operations in the Gulf. Reuters journalists visiting areas near the naval facilities observed damage from previous attacks, including a badly damaged warehouse and military equipment affected by strikes. The proximity of military installations to residential neighbourhoods has heightened concerns that future attacks could threaten civilians even when Iranian forces claim to be targeting American military assets. Bahrain's strategic importance therefore places it at the centre of the debate over whether existing security arrangements provide sufficient protection against sustained missile and drone attacks.
Iran's ability to impose costs on its adversaries does not depend on matching the United States or Israel in conventional military strength. Analysts attending the security conference argued that Tehran could instead pursue a prolonged campaign designed to exhaust defensive resources, disrupt economic activity and increase pressure on governments hosting American forces. Such an approach could force Washington and its partners to devote substantial resources to intercepting relatively inexpensive drones and missiles while maintaining the security of military bases and critical infrastructure. The possibility of a sustained campaign has increased concern among Gulf officials that another conflict could continue even after an initial round of American strikes.
The potential targets extend well beyond military installations. Officials familiar with Iranian contingency planning told Reuters that Tehran had considered retaliatory operations against communications infrastructure and other facilities, while Gulf governments feared that energy installations and desalination plants could also become vulnerable. These concerns are particularly serious in countries where desalination provides a substantial share of drinking water and where oil and gas exports remain essential to national revenue. Damage to such facilities could disrupt daily life, weaken economic activity and produce consequences extending far beyond the immediate military confrontation.
Energy security is another major source of concern because the Gulf remains central to international oil and liquefied natural gas supplies. The conflict has already disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway connecting major Gulf exporters with international markets. Further attacks on production facilities, export terminals or commercial vessels could deepen supply disruptions and place additional pressure on global energy prices. For Gulf governments seeking to diversify their economies and attract international investment, the prospect of prolonged instability threatens development plans as well as immediate security.
The United Arab Emirates has been among the regional governments urging diplomacy rather than another military confrontation. Anwar Gargash, a senior diplomatic adviser to the UAE president, told the Manama Dialogue that political negotiations offered the best prospect of resolving the crisis, while warning that the region needed to prepare for further escalation. His remarks reflected a position shared by several Gulf governments that have maintained close security relationships with Washington while seeking to reduce tensions with Tehran. The UAE has also acknowledged weaknesses in regional coordination during previous attacks, raising questions about whether Gulf countries need stronger collective defence arrangements.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty warned at the conference that renewed fighting would be more dangerous and destructive than earlier rounds of the conflict. His comments reinforced the concern that military escalation could widen beyond the immediate confrontation between Washington and Tehran, affecting countries that have not chosen to participate in the fighting. Regional officials fear that attacks on military facilities, ports, energy installations and transport networks could produce economic consequences across the Middle East. The warnings also reflect uncertainty about whether either side could achieve a decisive result through another round of military operations.
The diplomatic response has involved several regional powers seeking to prevent the confrontation from intensifying. Senior representatives from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Türkiye held discussions with Iranian officials in Tehran during October, while Qatar has continued mediation involving Iranian representatives and contacts with Washington. Saudi officials have described their diplomatic efforts as intended to prevent a return to military escalation, reflecting the kingdom's interest in protecting its territory and economic infrastructure. These initiatives demonstrate that governments with different relationships with Washington and Tehran share an interest in preventing another major conflict.
Qatar has played a particularly important role in the latest negotiations, hosting discussions with Iranian representatives over possible arrangements to reduce tensions and create conditions for a broader settlement. Iranian negotiators concluded a round of talks in Doha without announcing a breakthrough, although Tehran said diplomatic contacts were continuing. The discussions have involved proposals addressing the Strait of Hormuz and possible confidence-building measures between the United States and Iran. Significant differences remain over sanctions, maritime restrictions and the conditions under which Iran would accept a wider agreement.
Iranian officials have indicated that their country is prepared to respond to renewed American or Israeli attacks while maintaining that diplomacy remains possible. Tehran has previously threatened retaliation against military installations used to conduct operations against Iranian territory, and its armed forces have demonstrated the ability to launch missiles and drones across the region. Those threats have increased pressure on Gulf governments to avoid becoming staging grounds for another military campaign. At the same time, Iran's willingness to threaten neighbouring countries has reinforced concerns about the security risks posed by its military strategy.
For Washington, the dilemma involves maintaining pressure on Iran while reassuring allies that American security commitments remain credible. The Trump administration argues that military force and economic pressure are necessary to limit Iran's capabilities and secure an acceptable agreement. Critics of that approach question whether additional strikes would produce meaningful concessions or instead encourage Tehran to retaliate against regional partners. The administration has not publicly established that another round of attacks would eliminate Iran's ability to threaten American bases or Gulf infrastructure.
The debate has also exposed limitations in the defensive systems deployed across the region. Advanced air-defence networks can intercept many incoming missiles and drones, but repeated attacks can impose substantial financial and logistical costs. Gulf governments must protect military facilities, population centres, industrial installations and essential services across large areas, creating difficult decisions about the allocation of defensive resources. A prolonged confrontation could therefore test not only the effectiveness of individual weapons systems but also the capacity of governments to sustain protection over time.
Regional security analysts have questioned whether the United States should reconsider the structure and deployment of its military forces in the Gulf. Facilities designed primarily to project American power may require additional protection against the missile and drone threats demonstrated during the conflict. Governments hosting those installations face their own difficult choices because reducing the American military presence could weaken deterrence, while maintaining it may continue to expose their territories to Iranian retaliation. Neither option offers an immediate solution to the underlying tensions between Washington and Tehran.
The political implications extend beyond defence policy. Gulf governments have invested heavily in economic diversification, tourism, technology, financial services and infrastructure development, all of which depend on investor confidence and regional stability. Repeated warnings of military escalation can discourage investment, disrupt aviation and shipping, and increase the cost of protecting critical facilities. A prolonged conflict could also place additional pressure on public finances at a time when several countries are attempting to reduce their dependence on oil revenue.
The uncertainty has been particularly difficult for governments that have spent recent years improving relations with Iran while preserving their strategic partnerships with the United States. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have pursued diplomatic engagement with Tehran partly to reduce the likelihood of direct confrontation and protect economic development. Qatar and Oman have maintained channels of communication that can support negotiations when relations between Washington and Tehran deteriorate. Another round of American strikes could undermine those diplomatic gains and force regional governments to manage renewed security threats despite their efforts to avoid escalation.
The Manama Dialogue discussions revealed a growing concern that the military and political costs of renewed fighting would not be distributed equally. The United States possesses extensive military capabilities and can conduct operations from multiple locations, while Gulf countries face the prospect of attacks against infrastructure that cannot easily be relocated. Even successful interception of incoming weapons may not eliminate disruption to economic activity or public confidence. For regional governments, the central question is whether American security guarantees can adequately protect them against the consequences of a conflict they have repeatedly sought to prevent.
The timing of Trump's threats has added to the uncertainty because the United States is approaching congressional elections that could change the balance of power in Washington. American officials have not confirmed that military operations will begin after the vote, and diplomatic contacts remain active. Nevertheless, the possibility of a rapid decision has prompted Gulf governments to consider emergency security measures and the consequences of renewed Iranian retaliation. The lack of a confirmed agreement has left regional officials preparing for outcomes ranging from continued negotiations to another major exchange of strikes.
The broader strategic challenge is that military superiority does not necessarily translate into political stability. American and Israeli operations may damage Iranian military capabilities, but Tehran retains options for imposing costs through missile attacks, maritime disruption and threats against regional infrastructure. Gulf governments fear that a confrontation focused on weakening Iran could instead expose their own economies and populations to prolonged insecurity. That concern has strengthened calls for a diplomatic framework addressing both Iran's military activities and the security requirements of neighbouring states.
As negotiations continue, Gulf leaders face a difficult balance between maintaining close relations with Washington and avoiding involvement in another round of hostilities. The United States has not announced a final decision on further strikes, and Iran has not accepted a comprehensive settlement. Qatar and other regional mediators are continuing their efforts, but significant disagreements remain over the terms of any agreement. For America's Gulf partners, the immediate priority is preventing a renewed confrontation whose consequences could extend far beyond the governments making the decisions.