ISLAMABAD: A senior American analyst has exposed the single biggest factor holding Gulf nations back from counterattacks on Iran.
From the Gulf perspective this is simply not their war. Any retaliation risks far greater losses than gains.
Sina Toossi, senior non-resident fellow at the Center for International Policy, states the obvious yet critical truth. Retaliatory actions could swiftly escalate into core strategic threats. Leaders fear losing far more than they could ever achieve.
Toossi identifies three main reasons behind the restraint. These include inherent military and economic weaknesses, meticulous strategic calculations, and painfully limited benefits of any counterstrike.
Gulf economies rest on three pillars that Iran has repeatedly shown it can shatter. These are energy infrastructure, maritime shipping routes, and fragile investor confidence.
According to the US Energy Information Administration, roughly 20 million barrels of oil flowed daily through the Strait of Hormuz in 2024. This accounts for 20 percent of global petroleum liquids consumption.
Saudi Arabia alone supplied 5.5 million barrels per day. Bypass pipelines offer only limited relief of about 2.6 million barrels per day.
Iran’s recent strikes have already crippled key facilities. Qatar’s Ras Laffan LNG complex, handling one-fifth of global supply, was forced to shut down.
Saudi refineries at Ras Tanura and Yanbu sustained damage. UAE terminals at Fujairah and Ruwais, along with Kuwaiti oil fields, faced direct hits.
Global oil prices surged past $114 a barrel. Natural gas prices jumped 35 percent in a single session.
Gulf stock markets plunged sharply. Investor confidence evaporated amid fears of prolonged disruption.
Shipping activity through the strait has collapsed. Major container lines suspended bookings and war-risk insurance was withdrawn.
Toossi emphasises these disruptions are not abstract. Gulf states have watched their energy export revenues plummet and tourist hubs suffer lasting damage.
Any direct counterstrike would invite even heavier Iranian retaliation. This would target the very infrastructure that funds their modernisation visions.
Strategic calculations further reinforce hesitation. Gulf leaders know escalation could drag them into a protracted war they cannot sustain.
Smaller states lack offensive capacity. Even larger players like Saudi Arabia and the UAE prioritise economic stability over military adventurism.
Successful strikes on Iran would not guarantee long-term security. Instead, they risk rallying domestic support for the Tehran regime.
Regional analysts echo the Center for International Policy assessment. Gulf officials have made it clear they will not cross into direct offensive operations.
The restraint comes at a heavy price. Oil-dependent budgets face mounting pressure and public frustration is growing.
Yet leaders calculate that short-term pain is preferable. A wider war could bring catastrophic long-term damage.
As the conflict continues, Toossi’s analysis highlights a harsh reality. Iran has weaponised the Gulf’s own economic strengths against them.
Until this vulnerability is addressed through diplomacy or new routes, counterattacks remain off the table. The region’s stability now depends on whether this calculated restraint can hold.