CAIRO/WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is facing growing strain with several Persian Gulf partners after Iran launched retaliatory drones and missile attacks across the region in response to strikes carried out by the United States and Israel, according to officials speaking to the Associated Press and other outlets. Gulf leaders and senior officials cited a lack of advance notice and what they describe as insufficient defensive support, leaving them scrambling as an aerial barrage unfolded.
Officials said the discontent has been mounting as Iranian forces moved quickly from the U.S.-and-Israel actions to a “torrent” of weaponry aimed at Gulf states. In reporting tied to the AP, officials described frustration that their governments were not given adequate time to prepare defenses before drones and missiles began bombarding their countries. The complaint is not only about the speed of the retaliation, but also about whether the United States provided timely, detailed coordination and defense assistance when Gulf territory became a target.
Several Gulf governments are also said to be reacting to the broader strategic picture of how Washington has conducted the campaign. In addition to timing and warning, officials indicated frustration with perceived U.S. prioritization of Israel’s defense over the security needs of Gulf allies. The sense of imbalance has sharpened as Iranian attacks intensified, raising concerns that regional partners may be left to absorb the consequences of decisions in Washington and Jerusalem without receiving proportionate protective measures.
Reporting associated with the AP described “preferential defense of Israel relative to its allies in the Gulf,” a grievance that officials say has fed leadership-level resentment. Gulf partners, they said, are increasingly asking whether U.S. planning properly accounts for their vulnerabilities and whether the U.S. can be relied upon to help them manage fallout from escalations they did not initiate. The dispute is unfolding even as the broader conflict remains framed by Washington and its allies as retaliation and deterrence against Iran.
While some Gulf officials have voiced dissatisfaction with U.S. and Israeli war management, a separate line of reporting suggests that regional states are not uniformly looking to stop the campaign against Iran. In interviews with The Times of Israel, four senior officials from different Gulf capitals said that although there remains frustration with how the war is being prosecuted, Gulf countries—especially the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar—want the conflict to continue long enough to sufficiently weaken Iran’s military capability. Their stated aim is that Iran emerge from the fighting with its capacity reduced to the point that it is less able to threaten them.
Those officials also described how the focus of Gulf anger has been directed. They agreed that the primary target of regional frustration is Iran, because—according to their assessment—Tehran is using the U.S. and Israeli strikes as an opening to attack Gulf states, rather than directing the blame primarily at Washington and Israel for starting the escalation. In other words, even critics of American handling appear to see Iran’s retaliatory choice as the underlying trigger for the Gulf exposure.
At the same time, the Gulf states’ desire for Iran’s weakening has not eliminated concerns about being caught in the crossfire. Analyses cited by AFP, as relayed by The Times of Israel, characterize the situation as one in which Gulf countries that never wanted war are now facing existential pressure from Tehran’s aerial salvoes. The reporting highlights that Iran’s tactics have included threats to the region’s key maritime routes, with the Strait of Hormuz described as a focal point, underscoring the economic stakes for Gulf economies heavily dependent on energy exports.
Experts quoted in that coverage argued that a U.S.-Iran agreement framework—discussed in the reporting as part of the political landscape—could leave Gulf states exposed, in effect shifting pressure and uncertainty onto them. The complaint, as described, is that such arrangements may not adequately address core Gulf security concerns, prompting regional governments to seek alternative channels with Iran even as the United States appears eager to end the conflict quickly.
In that context, the question of notice and defense support takes on added political weight. Gulf capitals are grappling with whether coordination mechanisms worked during the transition from strike decisions to the subsequent Iranian response. Officials’ claims of inadequate warning suggest that the window for mobilizing air defenses, dispersing assets, and implementing civil protection measures may have been too narrow to match the speed and volume of attacks.
Beyond the immediate military challenge, the reported discontent points to a diplomatic challenge as well: aligning U.S. crisis communication and defensive commitments with the perceptions and expectations of partners whose territory is directly threatened. If Gulf leaders conclude they are not being treated as full stakeholders in contingency planning, future escalation management could become more complex, potentially altering how these states contribute to shared operations or negotiate terms.
As the conflict continues to evolve, the competing priorities—reducing Iran’s military power while demanding greater U.S. reliability and coordination—appear to be shaping Gulf positions. For Washington, the message from officials in multiple capitals is clear: even when Gulf governments support the strategic goal of weakening Iran, they expect timely warning and credible defense support when retaliation turns toward their countries.
For now, officials described frustration as both tactical and political—tactical because it centers on preparation against drones and missiles, and political because it reflects concerns about whose defense is prioritized and how decisions made in the U.S. and Israel translate into protections for Gulf allies. The dispute over notice and defensive help is emerging as one of the most immediate fault lines within the coalition confronting Iran.
Sources also indicate that the Trump administration is trying to manage the fallout from this wave of attacks and the accompanying diplomatic grievances. Whether new communication and defense coordination will follow—and whether Gulf states view them as sufficient—may determine how smoothly partners remain aligned as the confrontation with Iran continues to test regional security.
SHOP AMAZON BEST SELLERS, CLICK TO BUY FROM AMAZON.
SHOP AMAZON BEST SELLERS, CLICK TO BUY FROM AMAZON.
