Escalation of Conflict: U.S. Strikes on Iran and Regional Repercussions

The recent military strikes ordered by President Donald Trump against Iran have escalated tensions in the Middle East, igniting a series of retaliatory attacks from Iran that have targeted Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. The conflict began early on February 28, 2026, when U.S. forces launched operations that resulted in the death of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In response, Iran has executed drone and missile strikes against U.S. military installations in Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, as well as against Saudi Arabia, causing significant damage and panic.

Carnegie Endowment for International PeaceAlternetThe Advocate

The Iranian strikes have had immediate and severe consequences for the GCC states. Notably, the attacks have disrupted operations at Saudi Arabia's largest oil refinery and caused fires near luxury hotels in Dubai. Qatar's liquid natural gas exports, which account for 20% of the global market, were halted following drone strikes on key facilities. The economic fallout is expected to challenge the GCC's narrative of stability and opportunity, which has been crucial for attracting foreign investment.

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

In the wake of the conflict, Gulf monarchies are under pressure to maintain a facade of normalcy. Emirati officials have been seen promoting a "business as usual" message, while both the UAE and Qatar have denied reports of low interceptor stockpiles. However, internal dissent is surfacing, particularly in Bahrain, where protests among the Shia population are escalating. Critics, including former Vice President Kamala Harris, have condemned Trump's military actions as a "dangerous and unnecessary gamble," arguing that they risk drawing the U.S. deeper into a conflict that lacks public support.

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

President Trump has characterized the military operations as necessary to eliminate imminent threats from Iran, asserting that they are part of a broader strategy to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Conversely, critics within Congress, including Harris and California U.S. Representative Robert Garcia, have called for immediate congressional action to prevent further escalation, emphasizing that the American public does not support another war in the Middle East.

The Advocate

There are discrepancies regarding the effectiveness of the U.S. military response and the extent of Iranian capabilities. While the administration claims success in neutralizing threats, critics point to previous assertions that Iran's nuclear program had been "obliterated," raising questions about the current justification for renewed military action. Additionally, public opinion polls indicate that only 27% of Americans approve of Trump's actions, suggesting a significant disconnect between government actions and public sentiment.

The Advocate

As the conflict continues, the Gulf states face the challenge of balancing their diplomatic relations with Iran while managing the fallout from the military strikes. The potential for increased internal dissent and economic instability looms large, and the U.S. administration's next steps will be closely scrutinized both domestically and internationally. The situation remains fluid, with ongoing discussions about the legality and strategic rationale behind the military operations.

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

• “Donald Trump is dragging the United States into a war the American people do not want,” — Kamala Harris, Former Vice President

The Advocate

• “dangerous and unnecessary gamble” — Kamala Harris, Former Vice President

The Advocate

• “Under the Constitution of the United States, the President must receive authorization from Congress to enter a war,” — Kamala Harris, Former Vice President

The Advocate