Almost two hours before US President Donald Trump's deadline to 'end the whole of civilisation' through massive bombings on the night of April 7, his post on Truth Social announced a two-week-long ceasefire brokered by Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and the army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir. Speculations were divided: many doubted Iran would act on Trump's threats, while a significant number believed a strike against Iran's energy infrastructure was imminent. The security landscape in the Gulf has been permanently altered by the ceasefire, which now hangs in limbo as talks between US and Iran held in Islamabad collapsed.
The escalation from the US, Iranian retaliation, and Europe's limits have reshaped Gulf security in ways Washington did not anticipate.
Every major war in West Asia has reshaped the region's power politics, with global implications. After the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the Jewish state emerged victorious with more territory under its control than it had before it. Similarly, the 1956 Suez crisis ended the global influence of Britain and France, the two major colonial empires. The 1967 Six-Day War reestablished Israel's military dominance and laid the groundwork for the present-day Gaza crisis. In 1973, the Yom Kippur War caused a major oil crisis after Saudi-led oil-producing countries refused to sell to the US over its support for Israel. The aftermath of the war saw the emergence of the petro-dollar system and the start of the US-Saudi military partnership in exchange for the trade of oil in dollars. The Gulf wars of 1991 and 2003 weakened and later led to the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, making Iran the sole rival to Saudi Arabia in the region.
Similarly, the 2026 Iran-US war has turned the region increasingly vulnerable, has left its energy infrastructure more exposed, made Iran weaker, and forced the Gulf to rethink its security partnership with the US.
Gulf Disillusioned?
The US and Israel have had strong ties for over eight decades. The Arab world witnessed a thaw in its relations with the Americans, especially with the emergence of the petro-dollar trading system, which further increased the demand for the US dollar in exchange for security guarantees.
The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, which include Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE, and Oman, have invested heavily in their relationship with the US, assuming their interests would be well-considered over Israel's. However, Donald Trump, who is known for being unpredictable, has prioritised Israel's goals over the GCC's. Though Iran has remained a threat to these countries, as neighbours, the GCC and Iran maintained trade relations despite differences.
The primary driver behind the Iranian attacks on its neighbours was the presence of the US military in West Asia, especially in the Gulf. Even in its 10-point peace plan, Iran demanded a US military withdrawal from the Middle East.
The Gulf countries acted cautiously. The crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammad Bin Salman, reportedly pushed Trump to continue the war, seeing it as an opportunity to reshape the power dynamic in the region. The goals of the GCC were hedged against the assumption that a regime change would take place soon. However, Iran's attacks on oil refineries and natural gas infrastructure continued. According to an assessment from the Stimson Centre, in a month, the GCC received 83% of Iranian drones and missiles compared to just 17% launched at Israel. The message was clear - Iran attacked both military and civilian assets to destabilise the region's energy infrastructure and ensure that the ripple effects of the war go beyond the region. Only a ceasefire has been established, but hostilities remain.
Is Europe A Safer Bet?
In this context, Europe can emerge as a better partner for the Gulf than the US. One of the key reasons behind this observation is Europe's stance of not intervening directly in the war. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer vehemently rejected America's request to send British troops to fight the war against Iran; however, the UK allowed the US to use its bases to launch attacks. In response, Iran fired ballistic missiles at Diego Garcia, located 4,000 km away.
Even so, Europe is unlikely to emerge as a genuine alternative to the US in the near future, largely due to its own continued reliance on American air defence systems for both wide-area and localised protection. This dependence was highlighted, for instance, during the conflict when the redeployment of two Patriot missile system batteries from Germany to Turkey created air defence gaps across Europe.
Secondly, American weapons sales have seen a dramatic increase, soaring from 27% to over 50% following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. This is because US-made systems, such as the Patriot, THAAD, NASAMS, and Stinger air defence platforms, remain globally dominant.
While the newly elected German Chancellor Friedrich Merz called for Europe to pursue strategic 'independence' from the US in 2025, the continent collectively remains reliant on American defence capabilities. But, despite its military dependency on the US, Europe remains a middle power and a strong economic partner, which can anchor the Gulf countries, and Asian countries such as India, South Korea, and Japan, which in future can help create a military partnership that does not have the US as the foundational pillar.
US-Europe Fracture
Trump's rhetoric and actions in West Asia have been more destabilising for Europe than for Russia recently. In 2022, Europe faced an energy crisis due to its reliance on Russian gas. The effects of the energy crisis still exist, though the continent has agreed to phase out its dependence on Russian gas and actively depends on the US, Norway, Algeria and Australia for fossil fuel supplies.
Now, the Iran war has had a disastrous effect on European economies, with at least 18 countries announcing relief packages for their citizens. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which Trump withdrew from, is also a case in point. It was considered a European and American diplomatic victory under the Obama regime to stop the Iranian nuclear programme and integrate Iran into the global economy.
Another key takeaway from the war is Trump's increased skepticism of NATO as an unreliable partner. He has called out members of the alliance for not increasing the defence budget to 5% of the GDP, and laments the US taking the burden of spending more.
He has threatened to take Greenland by military force and ranted about NATO allies not supporting the US to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Last week, he said, "NATO wasn't there when we needed them, and they won't be there if we need them again. Remember Greenland, that big, poorly run, piece of ice!" The US President also betrayed his desperation when he wrote an expletive-laden post on Truth Social on Easter. However, not once has Trump hinted at implementing Article 5 of the NATO charter, which states that any attack on a member will be deemed as an attack on the entire alliance. Article 5 has been implemented only once after the 9/11 attacks in 2001.
Donald Trump's threats to take over Greenland by force, attacking Iran without consulting its European partners, and criticising NATO for not joining in its war efforts have caused fissures in their relationship.
A Catalyst For Islamic NATO?
A former US security official, who has extensively studied Iran, recently said in London that forming an "Islamic NATO" would be incredibly challenging due to the diverging strategic interests of countries. In the 1950s, the CENTO or Central Treaty Organization was considered an extension of NATO in Asia. It was dissolved in 1979 after the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Pakistan, Turkey, Iran and the UK were members of the military alliance. In 2026, Israel is a military superpower in the region, along with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, possessing a strong military.
The Gulf countries have had differences with Iran, but they continue to cooperate with Tehran because of the vulnerabilities of their energy infrastructure to any attack from Iran or vice versa. The worst-case scenario, which the US wargamed for years - of Iran's violent strikes on its neighbours - just became real for the Gulf. Despite that, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other countries refused to get actively involved, instead letting the US finish the job. Who would, then, be the adversary if an Islamic NATO were to be established? Pakistan sees Iran as an important neighbour. At the same time, a military alliance without Pakistan, which offers a nuclear umbrella, would be impotent.
Even so, the world has now witnessed Pakistan taking a stronger diplomatic role, and any future engagement concerning Iran would involve Islamabad. A wounded Iran, which is emboldened by its experience of attacking its neighbours and hijacking the global energy supply chain, makes a strong case for Islamic countries in Central Asia to partner militarily.
The war is still on. Iran has reasserted the significance of geography in global politics through its control of the Strait of Hormuz. The conflict allowed Israel to bomb Hezbollah targets in Lebanon south of the Litani River, attacking bridges and railroads, to create a military buffer zone to defend northern Israel. Now, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has agreed to speak to Lebanon for a ceasefire.
The next two weeks will decide the fate of this war.
(Divyam Sharma was a journalist at NDTV and is currently studying Terrorism, Security and Society at King's College London, with a specialisation in wargaming and OSINT)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
