Key Gulf Allies Say They Won’t Aid U.S. in an Iran Strike, Limiting Trump’s Options
Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. say the U.S. can’t use their airspace for a military operation against Tehran
- Saudi Arabia ruled out the use of its airspace and territory for a potential U.S. attack on Iran, complicating U.S. options.
- The United Arab Emirates earlier issued a similar statement, representing a foreign policy setback for the Trump administration.
- Military experts state that while the move increases operational complexity and costs, it wouldn’t prevent U.S. military action.
Saudi Arabia on Tuesday ruled out the use of its airspace and territory for a potential U.S. attack on Iran, complicating the Trump administration’s options in response to Tehran’s violent crackdown against Iranian protesters.
The Saudi move follows a similar statement Monday by the United Arab Emirates’ foreign ministry.
The declarations from the two Gulf states represent a foreign policy setback for the Trump administration as it seeks to ratchet up pressure on Tehran, which has defied Washington’s demand that it halt uranium enrichment and end the suppression of protesters.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the kingdom’s de facto leader, outlined his country’s position while talking by phone with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian.
A Saudi readout of the Tuesday call said the crown prince had stressed that the kingdom “will not allow its airspace or territory to be used for any military actions against Iran.”
Saudi Arabia is worried about being drawn into a conflict with Iran, which attacked the kingdom’s oil facilities in 2019 during President Trump’s first term in office.
“Both Saudi and the UAE have been targets of attacks by Iran and their proxies. A degraded and less threatening Iranian regime is in their interests, but they worry about regional unrest and Iranian retribution and don’t want to be the tip of the American spear,” said Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
A White House spokesperson said Trump “is watching the situation in Iran very seriously and all options are on the table if the regime executes protestors.”
Former high-ranking American military officers said that the Saudi and U.A.E. moves would hamper the Trump administration’s planning for military action, but wouldn’t prevent it if Washington was determined to act.
“From a military perspective, it increases operational complexity and costs for any U.S. action against Iran but won’t stop it,” said David Deptula, a retired Air Force lieutenant general who played a key role in the 1991 Desert Storm air campaign against Iraq, which the U.S. led from a command post in Saudi Arabia.
Deptula added that the Saudi and U.A.E. statements would also lower “the political cost for Tehran of resisting external pressures.”
The Trump administration has dispatched the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and its accompanying warships to the Middle East, including vessels equipped with cruise missiles. It also has several squadrons of F-15E fighters in Jordan.
The U.S. still could deliver a military blow by using those assets and by drawing on B-2 stealth bombers and other long-range bombers that could fly from the U.S. or be positioned at the Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean.
“I think this could force us to rely more heavily on carrier-based aviation or long-range assets coming from CONUS or bases like Diego Garcia,” said Joseph Votel, a retired Army general, using the acronym for the continental U.S.
“This action puts pressure on other regional states who may be considering support for a U.S. operation,” added Votel, who led U.S. Central Command from 2016 to 2019. “Finally, it means that an operation will have more of a U.S. flavor rather than a robust regional coalition against Iran.”
Trump has nurtured close ties with the Saudi crown prince, who visited the White House in November. At the time, Trump promised to sell advanced F-35 fighters to Saudi Arabia and defended the crown prince against allegations that he orchestrated the killing of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Saudi Arabia confirmed in a defense cooperation agreement that the U.S. was its “primary strategic partner,” and an agreement was announced that provided Riyadh with more access to U.S. artificial-intelligence technologies.
Analysts in Gulf states worry that U.S. military action would be more likely to lead to chaos within Iran than regime change, with consequences that could spill over into the region.
“Yes, Iran has been weakened, and its proxies have been weakened, but they have not disappeared,” said Bader Al-Saif, a Gulf expert and academic at Kuwait University. “We’ve been promoting ourselves as being the stable neighborhood where everyone can come in and invest. No one is going to come in and invest if this becomes the new normal.”
The U.S. would still be able to strike targets in Iran without access to Saudi airspace and bases by sending bombers and other aircraft through Jordanian, Syrian and Iraqi air space, launching cruise missile attacks from submarines and using aircraft from the carrier in the Arabian Sea.
But Middle East experts say that toppling the Iranian regime, or even striking it forcefully enough to dissuade it from repressing the protestors, would likely require a military campaign that could last weeks or even months. That would be more challenging without the cooperation of Gulf states.
“We have to remember that the regime is determined not to fall and willing to kill as many people as it needs to to stay in power,” said Kenneth Pollack, vice president for policy at the Middle East Institute and a former CIA analyst. “Overcoming that was always going to be extremely hard with air power alone, and even harder if we are limited to the carrier and what comes from CONUS and Diego Garcia.”