Iran’s Instability and the Gulf’s Indispensability

20 Apr 2026 01:11 PM

The war against Iran has tested two competing narratives about security in the Middle East, and have sharpened the resilience of the Gulf Arab Countries.

Two competing theories of regional power have been running in the Middle East for the past two decades. Iran’s theory was that military reach, military technology and proxy networks could substitute for economic weight in accumulating regional influence. The deliberate cultivation of instability forced every regional actor to account, hedge against and often directly and indirectly fight Tehran. The Gulf Arab states developed the opposite theory that influence built on indispensability and economic development outlasts influence built on fear, chaos and instability. From their view, a state that makes itself essential to global energy markets, international capital flows and regional infrastructure gives its international partners their own reasons to defend its stability without waiting to be coerced into it.

Both strategies have produced differing returns at differing times. Iran accumulated influence well beyond what its economy could support by cultivating non-state allies which a foothold in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen that enabled it to project counter-pressure on Israel and the United States. The Arab Gulf states meanwhile accumulated oil wealth, strong international partnerships, military hardware and, increasingly, technological capacity and innovation.

The current conflict is forcing a reckoning between them. Iran’s strategy of managed instability has run into its own structural limits, especially following the collapse of its influence in Syria after Assad’s fall and in Lebanon after Israel’s war on Hezbollah. The Gulf’s strategy of indispensability is being tested under pressure by both the US and Israeli strikes on Iran and Iran’s GCC targeted retaliations. The two strategies are now producing measurably different returns.

Click here for the full press release