Gulf states face an urgent reckoning over their trillion-dollar defense architectures following a massive barrage of Iranian munitions, according to a stark assessment published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
The Toll of an Attritional Air War
Before the ceasefire on 8 April, a total of 12 regional nations—primarily located in the Gulf—were targeted by 4,670 Iranian one-way attack drones alongside upwards of 1,400 ballistic missiles over the preceding weeks. Nearly half were aimed at the United Arab Emirates.
While the vast majority were repelled, the financial and structural toll proved staggering. Energy infrastructure sustained damage estimated as high as $58bn (£43bn). Beyond the balance sheets, the conflict exposed what the study terms an uncomfortable truth for the Gulf states: their trillion-dollar acquisition of US weapons has not translated into US protection at the crucial time, and their respective militaries are not adequately prepared for the new kind of attritional air war to which they are being exposed.
Strategic Vulnerabilities and the Limits of US Bases
The study highlighted major deficiencies within Gulf militaries, pointing out a heavy reliance on American-provided weaponry and missile shields, a lack of cohesive regional defense coordination, a deficiency in minesweeping capabilities, restricted options for retaliation, and massive financial burdens caused by utilizing costly, high-tier hardware to intercept much cheaper missiles and drones.
NEW: Iran’s apparent challenges in consolidating control over the Strait of Hormuz are likely driving the regional campaign that Iran is currently waging against the United States and its allies in the region. Iran’s proposal for the management of the strait, which attempts to… pic.twitter.com/5auNyZoIrD
Compounding these operational gaps is a shifting geopolitical reality regarding American military infrastructure. Public opinion on the US in the Gulf has been shifting, from security provider to strategic liability. If American troops were to scale back their presence or leave the Gulf altogether, Tehran would spin the move as a major victory confirming its persistence, while also using the development to mock Gulf governments for decades of relying on Washington for security.
This vulnerability prompted blunt assessments within Western policy circles. Chris Murphy, who sits on the senate foreign relations committee, pointed out that American military officials are currently debating whether it makes sense to restore damaged installations in the Gulf. Questioning the foundational utility of these installations, Murphy emphasized that if a base is wiped out within 24 hours of a hot war starting, rebuilding it would be criminally incompetent. Consequently, Washington may be forced to have a smaller footprint, or relocate its bases in the eastern Mediterranean further away from Iranian missiles.
Charting a Collective Path Forward
While the International Institute for Strategic Studies remains neutral on whether the divided Gulf states should seek a new non-aggression pact with Iran, alternative regional analysis highlights the pressing need for internal reform. True deterrence requires moving from co-ordination to integration.
Building genuine resilience demands making the Unified Military Command fully operational, linking early-warning and air and missile defence systems across the six GCC states, and streamlining real-time intelligence sharing. Without such synchronized institutional strength, Gulf cities run the risk of becoming open arenas for settling regional scores, leaving local economies vulnerable to prolonged attrition.
