Gulf states need to reconsider defence arrangements built on trillion-dollar spending after the US-Iran war exposed weaknesses in their protection and inflicted substantial economic damage, according to a study by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. The report also questions the continuing security value of hosting American military bases vulnerable to Iranian attacks.
During the weeks leading up to the 8 April ceasefire, Iran launched 4,670 one-way attack drones and more than 1,400 ballistic missiles against 12 countries in the region, most of them Gulf states, the study says. The United Arab Emirates was the target of almost half of those weapons. Most attacks were intercepted, but the report cites an estimate placing damage to energy infrastructure at as much as $58bn, or £43bn.
The study argues that extensive purchases of American weapons did not secure US protection when it was most needed. It also finds that Gulf militaries lack sufficient preparation for sustained aerial warfare of the kind they experienced. Their dependence on costly advanced equipment to intercept comparatively inexpensive drones and missiles has made defending against such attacks prohibitively expensive.
Other weaknesses identified include heavy reliance on US air and missile defence equipment and ammunition, inadequate coordination of regional defences, insufficient minesweeping capabilities and restricted options for retaliation. Together, these shortcomings raise questions about how Gulf governments should organise their security despite their considerable investment in armaments, chiefly from the United States.
The report takes no position on whether the divided Gulf countries should pursue a new non-aggression agreement with Iran. It nevertheless concludes that established American security partnerships have offered insufficient protection against Iranian aggression. It says those relationships and the presence of US bases have also given Iran an additional justification for attacking Gulf states, while public attitudes in the Gulf have increasingly come to regard the US relationship as a strategic burden.
Reducing or ending the American military presence would carry its own political consequences, the study says. Iran would present such a move as evidence that its persistence had succeeded and use it to discredit Gulf governments’ decades of reliance on Washington for protection.
The findings follow comments by Chris Murphy, a Democratic senator serving on the Senate foreign relations committee, who said the US military was actively debating whether damaged Gulf bases should be rebuilt. Gulf leaders wanted reconstruction and a continued American presence, he said, but he questioned spending public money on installations that could be destroyed shortly after another war began.
Murphy argued that the US would need a reduced regional presence, with decisions about rebuilding determined by its ability to defend the facilities. He said a military presence that could not be protected served no purpose. At a minimum, he suggested, the US might need to move its bases in the eastern Mediterranean farther from Iranian missiles.
