For decades, Gulf governments have promoted the narrative that their states are islands of stability in an otherwise turbulent region. Through economic diversification and careful geopolitical balancing, countries such as Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain have positioned themselves as pragmatic actors committed to stability and economic prosperity. Amid the current regional escalation, many of these governments reiterated that their territories would not be used to launch offensive operations, presenting their states as neutral actors seeking de-escalation.
Yet recent attacks across the region reveal a profound contradiction that has long underpinned Gulf security policy. Gulf states host extensive foreign military infrastructure and strategic logistical hubs tied to external defense partnerships. In practice, this creates a form of selective neutrality: governments distance themselves from conflict politically while remaining structurally embedded within it. The consequences of that ambiguity are increasingly borne by civilians.
The Contradiction of ‘Neutral’ Security Architecture
Recent strikes targeting airports, energy facilities, and strategic infrastructure across the Gulf have punctured the long-standing perception that these countries are insulated from regional violence. In the UAE, Bahrain, Oman and Kuwait, recent attacks left several civilians dead and injured, while triggering widespread fear among residents. Incidents targeting facilities linked to transportation and energy highlight how quickly the boundaries between civilian and strategic spaces can collapse during periods of escalation.
Despite official public discourse, GCC nations remain heavily reliant on US security, hosting major military bases and purchasing billions in US defense systems. When foreign military bases and other strategic assets operate on national territory, the host state becomes part of the conflict environment. These developments challenge the notion that self-proclaimed neutrality can shield societies from conflict, as neutrality cannot simply be a diplomatic statement; it is a structural condition that governments must actively strive for.
This contradiction raises important questions about who ultimately is left to bear the cost. Strategic ambiguity transfers the risks of state security policy onto civilian populations, in particular migrant workers and low-income communities who often live in close proximity to industrial zones and logistical facilities which house warehouses, refineries, and transport hubs. This exposes them to disproportionate exposure to danger without corresponding protection, as these populations typically have limited political representation in the Gulf and minimal recourse when their rights are violated.
The targeting of civilian-adjacent infrastructure disrupts the belief that prosperity alone can insulate states from the consequences of their geopolitical positioning. Furthermore, the symbolic timing of the escalation during Ramadan has intensified the sense of vulnerability among populations who have long trusted that their governments could shield them from regional turmoil. At its core, the issue is about civilian protection. Governments have the responsibility to minimize civilian exposure to harm and ensure protective measures are inclusive of all residents, including those communities who are most exposed to harm.
If Gulf states are genuinely committed to protecting their civilians, neutrality must extend beyond rhetoric. It requires transparency regarding security partnerships, clear safeguards for civilian populations, and public accountability for decisions that may expose residents to harm. Otherwise, neutrality risks becoming a branding exercise to protect governments’ reputation.
