The US–Israel campaign against Iran, launched on 28 February with the stated objective of regime change, was unprecedented in both scale and intent. Now, as the conflict nears the 4 to 6 week timeline estimated by President Donald Trump, with no end in sight, it appears that the political leadership in Washington may have gravely miscalculated this operation and is losing control of the conflict, with no definite political endgame.

It is true that American military superiority remains unmatched and that Iran’s military is taking heavy blows, but military accomplishments need to translate into a viable political endgame too—something that seems absent from Washington’s strategic thinking in this war.

Iran’s Strategic Leverage and Internal Consolidation

Whereas Iran appears to retain the ability to escalate the conflict at will, the war has, in fact, galvanized internal support for the Iranian regime—support that had been eroding due to decades of autocratic policies.

As for the external effects, this imposed war has already emboldened Iran as a regional military power like never before and exposed the security fragilities of the Gulf. One of the most consequential outcomes of this poorly strategized war could be Iran taking control of the Strait of Hormuz indefinitely and imposing transit tolls, much like Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser after the Second Arab–Israeli War. Any such move would jeopardize Gulf states in multiple ways, on whose oil exports the global economy breathes.

Erosion of American Credibility in the Gulf

With multiple reports suggesting the Gulf’s anti-Iran and US-aligned posture—especially in the case of Saudi Arabia—it increasingly appears to be a last-ditch narrative effort aimed at damage control as the credibility of American security guarantees amongst its regional allies in the region erodes.

It is apparent that this war has altered the strategic thinking of the traditionally pacifist Gulf states, which have realized that the so-called American security umbrella, instead of providing guarantees, may have turned into a liability.

Moreover, disparaging remarks by the US President about Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at FII Miami, a Saudi-led investment platform, have crossed established norms of diplomacy and statecraft. Such rhetoric undermines elite trust in Washington. Shortly after these remarks, images of a destroyed US AWACS aircraft from Prince Sultan Airbase surfaced, suggesting a calibrated move by Saudi Arabia that subtly undermined US censorship.

Tacit Understandings and Controlled Escalation

Throughout this month of war, Iran’s largely symbolic strikes on Saudi Arabia, along with Saudi public condemnations, the convening of GCC summits in Riyadh, and the emphasis on diplomacy, suggest that tacit rules of escalation may be at play between Tehran and Riyadh. At the same time, Riyadh appears to be hedging against dependence on the US security umbrella.

Iran’s clarification regarding not targeting Saudi Arabia’s Ras Tanura refinery, along with the incident involving the US embassy in Riyadh and Tehran hinting at a possible false flag operation by Israel, underscores the fact that certain red lines are being respected when it comes to Saudi Arabia.

From Alignment to Multi-Alignment

Furthermore, the China-brokered Saudi–Iran détente in 2023 was based on the core principle that in the event of Israeli aggression against Tehran, Riyadh would remain neutral. There is little logical reason for Saudi Arabia to violate that understanding and undermine its own prosperity and developmental trajectory.

The Saudis inking a defense deal with Ukraine amidst the ongoing war, without Washington’s involvement, suggests that Mohammed bin Salman is building a multi-aligned foreign policy—not an anti-US one, but a post US-led security order in West Asia.

The Gulf’s Calculated Restraint

The Gulf is maintaining its pacifist posture despite being drawn into a war that is not of its making—not because it lacks the means to defend its sovereignty, but because it understands the fragility of the moment. It would take only one misstep to destabilize the entire region.

In the past, nations such as Saudi Arabia have increasingly shown reluctance to fully align with US-led wars in the region– most notably the 2003 Iraq invasion, due to concerns over long term regional instability. In recent years this posture of non-alignment has further emboldened into a more defined doctrine of strategic autonomy under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, particularly in the context of ongoing Iran conflict, where Riyadh has sought to avoid direct military confrontation and prioritizing diplomatic solutions.

The Gulf states have repeatedly warned that any unprovoked military aggression against Iran would be catastrophic for the region and have tried their best to reach diplomatic solutions. Regardless, Washington, reportedly acting in alignment with Israel, launched this unprecedented campaign, exposing regional allies to insecurity, pushing the region into uncertainty, and disrupting the Strait of Hormuz—thereby imposing economic damage not only on the Gulf but risking a broader global economic downturn if the war continues.

Parallel Diplomacy and a Shifting Order

The GCC foreign ministers convening a video conference with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, alongside developments such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE engaging in defense cooperation with Ukraine, and China offering diplomatic signaling toward Iran while raising Gulf security concerns, all point toward the emergence of parallel diplomacy for Gulf nations.

Not only is Washington risking its credibility as a security guarantor in West Asia, but it is also straining long-standing alliances, including those within NATO, which were built on mutual strategic interests.

It is difficult to comprehend why President Donald John Trump—whose political messaging emphasized “Make America Great Again” and avoiding unnecessary foreign wars—appears to have reversed course.

Engaging in what is widely perceived as Israel’s war may well mark the beginning of a broader erosion of American diplomatic credibility, particularly with Gulf allies, while also deepening rifts with European partners through rhetoric that has mocked allied leadership, dismissed NATO as a “paper tiger,” and trivialized institutions such as the British Royal Navy.

Even now, indications of a potential escalation involving the targeting of critical civilian infrastructure by Washington reinforce the perception of a strategy sliding toward dangerous escalation without a defined political endgame.

From ‘America First’ to ‘America Alone’

Waging a war that neither serves core American interests nor safeguards regional allies—while simultaneously weakening alliances and enabling adversaries to coordinate more effectively in an increasingly multipolar world—risks turning “America 

First” into “America Alone.” In that vacuum of credibility, regional actors are no longer merely reacting—they are recalibrating their strategic calculus.

In this context, what may appear as a passive Gulf, stripped of sovereignty, could instead reflect a deeper transformation. These states may be learning to move beyond dependence on external security guarantees that have proven unreliable, and toward a more autonomous regional security framework.

This moment, unprecedented in the modern history of the Gulf, may well result in the emergence of a new security dynamic in West Asia—one no longer dependent on importing security from foreign powers. At the heart of this transition stands Saudi Arabia, rewriting its foreign policy playbook and quietly directing the contours of a post-US security order in West Asia.