How the Gulf foiled Iran’s fragmentation plan

By the Editorial Team · Thursday, September 10, 2026

Since late February, Iran has expanded its regional attacks to target multiple Gulf states, including Oman and Qatar, in an effort to broaden the conflict and pressure typically neutral countries. In response, Gulf states have adopted diverse but complementary economic and diplomatic measures that collectively increase the costs for Iran and signal a growing regional cohesion against Tehran’s strategy of escalation.

Since Iran began its campaign of regional attacks on February 28, it has expanded its strikes across the Gulf, targeting a range of Arab states that previously avoided direct involvement in the conflict. Tehran’s strategy appears aimed at broadening the geographic scope of the fighting to increase pressure on states that have tried to remain neutral, a tactic known in security studies as horizontal escalation.

In the unfolding months, Iran has attacked countries including Oman, Qatar, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. Oman, traditionally a mediator between the United States and Iran, experienced its first direct strike with assaults on Duqm port and an oil tanker. Qatar also faced attacks, notably on the Ras Laffan liquefied natural gas facility, despite its historically close relations with Tehran, including their shared gas fields. Additionally, NATO forces intercepted Iranian drones near Turkey’s Incirlik airbase, further demonstrating the expanded scope of Tehran’s campaign.

Each Gulf state has responded to the crisis based on its unique geographic, political, and historical relationship with Iran. This has resulted in a range of individual approaches rather than a unified, collective military response or activation of existing multilateral defense mechanisms. Iran appeared to calculate that such divisions would prevent a coordinated regional reaction, betting that the Gulf’s strategic patience and recent rapprochement would limit effective joint action.

However, the early outcome suggests Tehran’s assumptions have not materialized as expected. Instead of exposing fractures, the attacks have led Gulf states to impose costs on Iran through distinct and complementary measures. For example, the United Arab Emirates implemented an indefinite trade embargo on Iran in August, while Saudi Arabia adopted a more measured stance focused on de-escalation and engagement. Although these responses differ tactically, analysts interpret them as components of a shared strategy aimed at imposing lasting economic and diplomatic consequences on Iran.

Together, these individual state actions amplify a broader regional message: further horizontal escalation by Tehran will result in significant, enduring penalties. These include intensified trade restrictions, deeper integration of Gulf states with U.S.-Israel security partnerships, and increased exposure to international legal actions. This multi-faceted and decentralized pressure is considered more difficult for Iran to circumvent than a unified military coalition because there is no single threshold or response that Tehran can easily anticipate or exploit.

In sum, while Tehran’s efforts sought to outpace and fragment the Gulf’s response by widening the conflict’s theater, Gulf states have instead absorbed these attacks and increasingly aligned their diplomatic, legal, and economic measures. The result is a region gradually coordinating its approach to exert pressure on Iran on its own terms, favoring incremental and strategic responses rather than mirror strikes, underscoring a nascent but substantive regional cohesion in the face of Iranian escalation.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.