War vs diplomacy: What Gulf states got right that Washington didn’t

As US assumptions unravelled, Gulf stayed focused on dialogue, stability and navigation

Last updated:
Stephen N R, Senior Associate Editor
Smoke rises from a high-rise building following a drone attack in Kuwait City on March 8, 2026.
Smoke rises from a high-rise building following a drone attack in Kuwait City on March 8, 2026.
AFP

Dubai: As the US-Iran conflict entered its fifth month with no clear end in sight, one theme has become increasingly apparent: Many of the priorities repeatedly emphasised by Gulf states have proved more durable than several early assumptions made in Washington.

While US President Donald Trump and senior officials predicted a short war, quick Iranian concessions and limited disruption to the Strait of Hormuz, Gulf leaders consistently stressed dialogue, de-escalation and the need to safeguard one of the world’s most critical shipping lanes.

A CNN analysis noted that the Trump administration confidently made several predictions during the conflict that were later overtaken by events, from expecting the war to last only a few weeks to believing Iran would quickly return to negotiations and that the Strait of Hormuz would remain secure. CNN argued that the administration appeared to underestimate both Iran’s resilience and the complexity of the conflict.

Diplomacy remained the Gulf’s constant message

Throughout the conflict, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman and the Gulf Cooperation Council repeatedly called for restraint rather than escalation.

Even during periods of heavy fighting, Gulf leaders continued urging diplomatic engagement, warning that further military escalation would threaten regional stability and global energy markets.

Oman, in particular, continued mediating indirect contacts between Washington and Tehran, while the UAE consistently emphasised dialogue and political solutions.

What the Gulf got right

  • The conflict would not end quickly.

  • Diplomacy remained essential despite military action.

  • The Strait of Hormuz would remain central to the crisis.

  • Regional stability mattered as much as battlefield gains.

  • Open shipping lanes were critical to the global economy.

Freedom of navigation

Another area where Gulf governments remained consistent was the Strait of Hormuz.

While Washington initially downplayed the strategic impact of disruptions in the waterway — and more recently briefly floated the idea of imposing cargo fees before reversing course within 24 hours — Gulf states maintained that freedom of navigation should remain protected under international law.

The GCC repeatedly called for keeping international shipping lanes open, arguing that commercial vessels should never become targets or bargaining tools.

The war lasted far longer than expected

Early in the conflict, Trump repeatedly predicted the campaign would last only four to five weeks.

More than four months later, hostilities continue despite a memorandum of understanding that briefly paused the fighting before collapsing.

CNN noted that the prolonged conflict has highlighted how difficult it is to translate battlefield gains into a lasting political settlement.

Iran proved more resilient

Washington also projected confidence that Iran would quickly seek a comprehensive deal.

Instead, Tehran continued military operations, resisted key US demands and used the Strait of Hormuz as leverage despite mounting economic pressure.

According to CNN, repeated predictions that Iran was “begging” for a deal or would rapidly compromise failed to materialise as negotiations stalled and the conflict resumed.

Stability over confrontation

For Gulf countries, the greatest concern throughout has been preventing the conflict from spilling across the wider region.

Repeated attacks on commercial shipping, threats to energy exports and disruptions to maritime trade reinforced long-standing Gulf warnings that instability in the Strait of Hormuz would carry consequences far beyond Iran and the United States.

While Washington’s military objectives evolved over time, Gulf capitals largely maintained the same priorities: protecting navigation, containing escalation and preserving space for diplomacy.

As the conflict continues with no immediate resolution in sight, those principles have remained central to the region’s response.

Stephen N R
Stephen N RSenior Associate Editor
A Senior Associate Editor with more than 30 years in the media, Stephen N.R. curates, edits and publishes impactful stories for Gulf News — both in print and online — focusing on Middle East politics, student issues and explainers on global topics. Stephen has spent most of his career in journalism, working behind the scenes — shaping headlines, editing copy and putting together newspaper pages with precision. For the past many years, he has brought that same dedication to the Gulf News digital team, where he curates stories, crafts explainers and helps keep both the web and print editions sharp and engaging.

Get Updates on Topics You Choose

By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Up Next