In recent months, the Gulf countries had intensified diplomatic efforts to prevent escalation, seeking to establish de-escalation channels between Iran and Western powers. They had distanced themselves from certain Israeli positions in the past and had worked behind the scenes on negotiations, particularly regarding Iran’s nuclear program. This moderate stance — neither pro-Iran nor anti-Israel — offered Tehran a rare window of opportunity to neutralize regional opposition and reduce the Islamic Republic’s security isolation. Instead of capitalizing on this window, decisions taken by the Revolutionary Guards produced the opposite effect: by striking territories or interests linked to these Gulf states, Iran violated their sovereignty and undermined the diplomatic leverage it had managed to build. This encouraged these monarchies to move closer to Washington and Tel Aviv on strategic security matters, prompting some to strengthen their defense systems, host greater American military cooperation, or at the very least abandon any neutral posture. The case of Oman is particularly emblematic: even as it condemned the escalation, it was struck or perceived as being targeted, definitively breaking trust and shrinking the space for mediation.

These attacks, however costly they may have been militarily for Iranian forces, did not generate significant internal instability within the Gulf states. The concerned monarchies maintained their stability, their political and economic trajectories, and their openness to security cooperation with the West. This highlights a strategic overestimation of the potential of indirect pressure.