Arab allies in the Persian Gulf met with US President Donald Trump in New York on Tuesday as he considers whether to “annihilate” the Iranian regime. They talked him out of a major escalation once before. This time, they fear getting drawn further into the war, just as Washington is looking for a way out.
In early August, President Trump said the leaders of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar had called off major attacks on Iran because they believed a deal with Iran was within reach. More than a month later, no such agreement has been reached, oil prices remain high and the U.S. midterm elections approach.
The US president told Axios on Thursday that “big decisions” have to be made regarding the war and that he wants to hear directly from Gulf leaders. Their challenge is to give him a path forward that protects them from further attacks without drawing them deeper into the war.
“President Trump’s planned meeting (with Gulf leaders) could be one of the most important diplomatic meetings at this stage of the conflict,” Danny Sitrinowitz, an Iran analyst at the Israel National Security Institute, wrote. “The central question for Washington will be how they consider the choice between a new escalation and a diplomatic withdrawal.”
“I think there’s a lot of momentum toward building a consensus,” President Trump said during a meeting with Arab leaders on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.
Last month, a concerted appeal from Gulf leaders helped persuade President Trump to stop the shooting. Now, the two sides are clashing as the war escalates and Iranian proxies target Saudi energy infrastructure from Yemen and Iraq, raising fears of a global energy shock.
Saudi Arabia faces the most far-reaching security threat since the 1991 Gulf War, even as President Trump has shown little appetite for direct intervention on its behalf and the United States has discussed long-term reductions in its military presence in the Gulf. This is a test of the US-led security deals that took shape after that war. Gulf states host U.S. troops, buy U.S. weapons, and look to the U.S. to deter threats.
It remains unclear whether President Trump intends to act on his threat to “annihilate” his administration. He has good reason to think twice. America’s missile stockpile is seriously depleted, and a renewed escalation of an already unpopular war could hurt Republican candidates in the midterm elections, which are just weeks away.
If the United States escalates its military ties with Iran, the Gulf states could once again bear the brunt of Tehran’s retaliation, something they are not keen on. Riyadh is already facing a two-pronged attack, while Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait continue to face major trade disruptions due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, the UAE is stepping up its engagement with Iran. Anwar Gargash, a diplomatic adviser to the UAE president, said the two countries agreed on the need to “turn the page.” But Gargash warned that rebuilding trust could take decades and said dialogue must be combined with deterrence.
Bader al-Saif, an assistant professor of history at Kuwait University, told CNN that Gulf leaders could only persuade Trump if they spoke with a “united voice” and asked “very specific questions.”
President Trump has again threatened to attack Pickaxe Mountain, a suspected Iranian nuclear facility that has seen a surge in construction activity this year, CNN reported. “We may have to blow up another pickaxe,” President Trump said Tuesday at a meeting with Gulf leaders on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. If the U.S. discovered any activity there, “we would blow it up right away,” he added.
President Trump made this comment shortly after claiming that Iran is no longer pursuing nuclear weapons. “We’re not going to allow that to happen. It’s already over. That aspect of it, in my opinion, is already over,” Trump said. U.S. intelligence agencies have reported that Iran ended its nascent nuclear weapons program around 2003 and is not pursuing the development of a nuclear bomb under Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who was killed in an airstrike in February.
Beyond President Trump’s next move against Iran, Gulf leaders also face long-term fears of a diminished U.S. military presence in the region.
Pentagon officials have privately made clear they want to reduce the U.S. military presence in several Gulf states as part of a broader effort to shift more of the defense burden to regional partners, three sources familiar with the discussions earlier told CNN.
For Gulf governments, even discussing a drawdown of U.S. forces as attacks spread across the region risks handing Iran a victory and further endangering it.
“Now is definitely not the time for such a dialogue,” an official familiar with Saudi thinking told CNN, adding that this had been communicated to the Trump administration. “The Gulf Cooperation Council is working hard to present a united front against Iran.”
Just two weeks into the Iran war, President Trump questioned why the United States should shoulder the heavy burden of protecting Gulf energy routes, as Iran begins to strike Gulf states in retaliation for U.S. and Israeli attacks.
“You could argue that we shouldn’t be there in the first place,” President Trump said in March, referring to the U.S. military presence in the Gulf.
For officials familiar with Saudi thinking, talk of reducing the U.S. military presence is in the Iranian government’s interests. “Iranians want headlines like reports that the United States is withdrawing or withdrawing from Kuwait,” the official told CNN, referring to a Wall Street Journal report in late June that said the U.S. was considering reducing its military presence in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
Iran has long viewed U.S. military bases in the Gulf as an immediate threat. Throughout the war, Iran’s government has repeatedly called for the base to be closed, but Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has focused the debate on Gulf leaders, claiming the base targets his country without providing the security promised by Washington.
“By now they must realize that America’s claims to provide security and peace are a lie,” he said in a statement in March.
For Kuwait University’s Bader al-Saif, this war is testing something bigger than the future of U.S. military bases. The 1991 Gulf War turned the region into a testing ground for American supremacy at the top of the world. Now, he said, the Gulf is a “test case” for moving in the opposite direction.
“The US-led mandate has been in place for 30 years. That mandate is over,” he said. “Does that mean there will be no US involvement in the new order? No. But there will be a different type of relationship between the US and the Gulf states.”
For Riyadh, the changing limits of U.S. relations were severely tested this month. Attacks on Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities and export routes threatened to disrupt supplies, send global oil prices soaring and increase the price of gasoline for Americans.
Yemen’s Iranian-backed Houthis have attacked Saudi oil facilities and declared a blockade of ships traveling to and from Saudi ports through the Red Sea. Iranian-backed Iraqi militias are also accused of attacking the kingdom’s East-West Pipeline, a key route that bypasses the Strait of Hormuz.
However, when Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman asked President Trump to attack the Houthis, the president declined, CNN first reported. The decision comes less than a year after the United States signed a defense agreement with Riyadh and designated Saudi Arabia as a major non-NATO ally, even as the United States continues to provide intelligence and targeting support to Saudi forces.
The Saudi episode illustrates the dilemma Gulf leaders may pose to President Trump on Tuesday. They want U.S. support against an impending attack, but fear another major escalation with Iran could jeopardize their security.
Most Gulf governments would prefer stability to another war, Citrinovic wrote. That doesn’t mean turning away from Washington, he said: “American power is essential, but relying solely on Washington comes with its own risks.”
For al-Saif, the case should begin with something less ambitious than a comprehensive peace deal, in exchange for freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and possibly limited relief over access to Iranian oil sales and goods. He said Gulf leaders needed to make concrete demands before a war of attrition became “the new normal in the Gulf.”
But even narrower deals may be difficult to achieve. In August, Gulf leaders reportedly told President Trump that a deal with Iran was close. This time, Qatar’s own reputation as a mediator seems less promising.
At a conference in Abu Dhabi this month, Qatari Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Majid Al-Ansari cast doubt on the prospects for an agreement. He said Iran could withstand a long war. Washington may hope that further pressure will weaken the Iranian government, while Iran may hope that the conflict will change U.S. political calculations. For now, both sides may benefit more by waiting.
Even if the two sides returned to negotiations, Al-Ansari sees no clear agreement that both sides would accept as a victory. “What is the desired outcome for both sides in this war?” he asked. “If anyone can answer that, I’ll pay you $1 million of my own money.”
