Dr Majid Rafizadeh: Gulf states’ sovereignty in midst of Iran war

The recent escalation in the Middle East has centered on confrontation between United States, Iran, and Israel. However, Iran’s decision to launch missiles and drones toward Gulf states represents a dramatic and alarming expansion of that conflict beyond its principal actors. Instead of remaining confined, the crisis now risks engulfing countries that neither initiated nor participated in the confrontation.

By targeting Gulf states, Tehran has crossed a critical red line that threatens to transform a contained struggle into a regional conflagration. Such actions undermine the long-standing assumption that non-belligerent states can remain outside the battlefield if they avoid provocation. The result is a destabilizing message to the entire region: neutrality may no longer provide protection. This shift increases anxiety among governments and populations alike, as it suggests that any country could suddenly find itself drawn into war regardless of its intentions or policies.

Targeting neutral states undermines diplomacy

The Gulf states have not been parties to the conflict. On the contrary, many of them have consistently pursued diplomatic engagement with Iran, maintaining open channels even during moments of severe tension. Their leaders have often emphasized dialogue, de-escalation, and regional cooperation as alternatives to confrontation. Some have hosted or facilitated indirect talks, attempting to bridge gaps between Tehran and Washington and to reduce misunderstandings that could spiral into violence.

 

By targeting Gulf states, Tehran has crossed a critical red line that threatens to transform a contained struggle into a regional conflagration.

Striking states that have actively sought mediation sends a troubling signal that diplomatic neutrality is not valued or respected. It weakens incentives for peaceful engagement in the future, as countries may conclude that efforts at dialogue do not shield them from harm. Moreover, it risks eroding fragile trust built through years of cautious rapprochement between Iran and its Arab neighbors. If diplomacy is met with missiles, the space for negotiation shrinks, and hardline voices advocating deterrence and militarization gain influence.

Direct violation of sovereignty and international law

Missile and drone strikes against Gulf countries constitute a clear breach of sovereignty, one of the foundational principles governing relations among states. The modern international system depends on the understanding that borders are inviolable and that no nation may use force against another except in self-defense or with international authorization. Without this norm, global order would give way to chaos, as stronger states could impose their will on weaker ones without consequence.

The United Nations Charter codifies this principle by prohibiting the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
Violating these rules not only endangers the targeted countries but also undermines the broader legal framework designed to prevent interstate war.
When sovereignty is disregarded, the risk of retaliatory strikes, alliance activation, and cascading escalation grows dramatically. Respecting borders is therefore not merely a legal obligation; it is a practical necessity for maintaining peace.

Neutral airspace and preventive measures ignored

Reports that targeted Gulf countries had closed their airspace highlight the extent of their efforts to avoid involvement in the conflict. By shutting down their skies, these states signaled clearly that they did not wish their territory to be used for operations against Iran. This preventive step was intended to demonstrate neutrality and to reassure Tehran that no hostile activity would originate from their soil.

Striking countries that have taken such precautions creates a dangerous precedent. It suggests that even explicit measures to avoid entanglement may not be sufficient to guarantee safety. Smaller states in the region may now feel compelled to pursue stronger defense arrangements or external security guarantees, potentially increasing great-power involvement and militarization. Instead of reducing tensions, the strikes risk accelerating an arms race and deepening mistrust across the Gulf.

Regional and global consequences of escalation

The implications of expanding the conflict are profound. A broader war could threaten critical energy infrastructure, shipping lanes, and economic lifelines that connect the Middle East to the global economy. The Gulf region supplies a significant share of the world’s oil and gas, and instability there would reverberate through international markets, affecting prices, trade flows, and economic stability far beyond the region itself.

For the people of the Middle East, the consequences would be even more severe. Civilian populations already coping with economic pressures, displacement, and past conflicts would face renewed insecurity. Tourism, investment, and development projects would stall, while humanitarian needs would rise sharply. History has shown that wars in this region rarely remain contained; they produce ripple effects that last for decades, reshaping societies and political systems long after the fighting ends.

The conflict must not be internationalized

At its core, the current confrontation remains a conflict involving Iran, the United States, and Israel. Expanding it to include additional countries that have not engaged in hostilities serves no defensive necessity. Instead, it multiplies the number of actors, complicates diplomacy, and increases the likelihood of miscalculation. Each new participant introduces its own interests, alliances, and red lines, making de-escalation exponentially more difficult.

Dragging neutral states into the war also risks unifying regional opposition and inviting broader international intervention. A regional war involving many countries becomes far harder to control and far more destructive.

READ: Eyad Abu Shakra: Iran war will redefine our reality

Respect for sovereignty as the only path to stability

Respecting the sovereignty of Gulf states is essential to preventing catastrophe. When nations honor each other’s borders and neutrality, diplomacy retains a foothold even during crises. Iran should therefore reconsider actions that target countries outside the core dispute and reaffirm its commitment to non-interference. De-escalation, renewed diplomatic engagement, and recognition of neutral states’ rights are the only viable path toward stability. The alternative – widening war engulfing the Gulf and beyond – would be devastating for governments and civilians alike, with consequences that could shape the region for generations.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Maghrebi.org. Dr Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated political scientist, specializing in US foreign policy and the Middle East. You can follow him on X: @Dr_Rafizadeh.

If you wish to pitch an opinion piece, please send your article to opinion@maghrebi.org.