Skip to content
You can now search across every topic, entity and event.What's new
Iran Conflict 2026
11JUN

UAE and Saudi Arabia weigh Iran strikes

3 min read
09:17UTC

Axios reports the UAE and Saudi Arabia are considering direct attacks on Iranian missile sites — a step no Gulf Arab state has taken in the modern era, and one that would cost Riyadh a Chinese-brokered peace deal barely two years old.

ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway

The report's sourcing — Israeli officials rather than Emirati or Saudi ones — suggests this may serve Israeli information interests in widening the coalition as much as it reflects genuine Gulf deliberation.

Axios reported Wednesday, citing Israeli officials, that the UAE and Saudi Arabia are considering direct strikes on Iranian missile launch sites, driven by the volume of fire both countries have absorbed. Neither government has confirmed. The UAE has intercepted 165 ballistic missiles, 2 cruise missiles, and 541 drones since operations began . Saudi air defences downed eight drones near Riyadh during the same attack wave that struck the US Embassy compound .

The source warrants scrutiny. Israeli officials have a direct interest in Gulf States joining the campaign — broader participation distributes both the military burden and the political exposure. A report sourced to Israeli officials, published without confirmation from Riyadh or Abu Dhabi, may reflect an Israeli aspiration as much as a Gulf intention. The incentive to leak such a report is obvious: it pressures Gulf capitals publicly and creates a diplomatic expectation they must either meet or visibly refuse.

For Saudi Arabia, the calculus runs through Beijing. The 2023 China-brokered normalisation agreement with Iran ended seven years of severed relations, reopened embassies, and gave China a diplomatic stake in Gulf stability it had never previously held. Saudi strikes on Iranian territory would collapse that architecture entirely. Beijing has already moved beyond general calls for restraint to direct negotiations with Tehran pressing Iran to spare specific Gulf infrastructure . Chinese diplomatic credibility is invested in a framework that Saudi bombs would destroy.

No Gulf Arab state has struck Iranian territory in the modern era. During the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, Gulf monarchies funded Baghdad's war effort and allowed Iraqi aircraft to operate from their bases, but never launched their own attacks on Iran. Both the UAE and Saudi Arabia have framed every action in this conflict as purely defensive — intercepting incoming fire, protecting their own populations. Strikes on launch sites inside Iran would end that framing permanently, converting two non-belligerents into active combatants in a war neither chose to start.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

According to a single report citing Israeli sources, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are reportedly considering launching their own airstrikes against Iranian missile sites. Neither country has confirmed this. Both have so far absorbed Iranian missile attacks without striking Iran directly. Joining the fight would be a major escalation — particularly for Saudi Arabia, which signed a peace deal with Iran just three years ago brokered by China. If they do strike, Iran could respond by targeting Saudi oil facilities, which would affect global energy prices significantly.

Deep Analysis
Synthesis

China faces a direct test of its regional diplomatic credibility that the body does not surface: the 2023 deal was Beijing's most significant Middle East diplomatic achievement. Saudi strikes on Iran would demonstrate that Chinese soft power in the Gulf is insufficient to prevent an agreement signatory from attacking the other party — revealing whether Chinese regional influence is structural or merely transactional, with consequences for Beijing's global mediator positioning.

Root Causes

The 2023 Saudi-Iran normalisation was always a strategic hedge rather than genuine rapprochement — Riyadh was simultaneously balancing US pressure for Gulf-Israel normalisation and Chinese incentives for Iran engagement. Iran's sustained ballistic missile campaign against Saudi territory has now collapsed that balance, forcing a choice the 2023 agreement was specifically designed to defer indefinitely.

Escalation

UAE's structural position differs from Saudi Arabia's in ways the body does not address: no China-brokered normalisation agreement at risk, an existing intelligence-sharing architecture with Israel via post-Abraham Accords security cooperation, and a smaller domestic political exposure to Sunni-Shia framing. UAE acting before or independently of Saudi Arabia is structurally more plausible than joint simultaneous action.

What could happen next?
2 risk1 consequence1 meaning1 precedent
  • Risk

    Iranian retaliation against Saudi oil infrastructure following Gulf state strikes could remove 6-10% of global crude supply, driving oil prices to levels not seen since 2008 and compounding existing shipping insurance paralysis.

    Short term · Suggested
  • Consequence

    Saudi participation would dissolve the distinction between the US-Israeli coalition and the broader Gulf, transforming a bilateral conflict into a regional war with no neutral Gulf mediators remaining.

    Short term · Assessed
  • Risk

    China's credibility as a regional mediator is directly at stake — Saudi strikes on Iran would represent the most significant failure of Chinese Middle East diplomacy since Beijing's regional engagement began in earnest.

    Medium term · Suggested
  • Meaning

    Israeli sourcing of the report suggests a deliberate signal to Tehran that Gulf participation is possible — functioning as a deterrence escalation tool whether or not Gulf action is genuinely imminent.

    Immediate · Assessed
  • Precedent

    Gulf state strikes on Iran would establish that the Abraham Accords framework has produced effective military coalition behaviour even without formal Saudi-Israel normalisation.

    Long term · Suggested
First Reported In

Update #19 · First US torpedo kill since 1945

Axios· 4 Mar 2026
Read original
Causes and effects
This Event
UAE and Saudi Arabia weigh Iran strikes
Direct Gulf Arab military strikes on Iranian territory would dissolve the distinction both states have maintained between defending their own airspace and joining the US-Israeli offensive campaign. For Saudi Arabia, it would also jeopardise the 2023 China-brokered normalisation with Iran — Beijing's most consequential Middle Eastern diplomatic achievement — at the moment China has shifted from general restraint calls to direct pressure on Tehran.
Different Perspectives
Oil markets and Lloyd's of London
Oil markets and Lloyd's of London
Brent fell to $89.25 on ceasefire probability, not new barrels, with traders voting for Trump's deed over Tehran's denial. Lloyd's has not repriced Hormuz war-risk cover because its trigger requires a UN Security Council resolution or government certification, so tanker insurance costs remain elevated regardless of the spot move.
Pakistan and Qatar mediators
Pakistan and Qatar mediators
Pakistan's Mohsin Naqvi was in Tehran for his second visit in under a week, using the Pakistan-Qatar channel that delivered April's ceasefire after an identical public-denial cycle. The channel carries both civilian and military buy-in from Islamabad, the only configuration Iran's split command cannot dismiss as a partial signal.
India
India
India summoned the US Deputy Chief of Mission after three Indian sailors were killed aboard MT Settebello, the first formal grievance from a major non-belligerent directed at US enforcement. Indian seafarers supply roughly 12 per cent of the global maritime workforce; their presence on third-flag Gulf tankers is structurally inevitable regardless of bilateral diplomacy.
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)
The IRGC declared Hormuz closed on 11 June while civilian negotiators were on the same mediation channel, then issued no public comment on the MoU framework. Its silence on the framework, rather than any foreign ministry statement, is the operative approval signal; the corps' unilateral Hormuz closure shows it did not treat the diplomatic track as binding on its operations.
Iran foreign ministry (Baghaei)
Iran foreign ministry (Baghaei)
Esmail Baghaei told IRNA that reports of a finalised deal were 'merely speculation' and that Iran had 'not yet made a final decision'. The denial is structurally identical to Iranian foreign ministry statements during the April ceasefire talks, which produced a binding text within 48 hours of the same language.
Trump administration / CENTCOM
Trump administration / CENTCOM
Trump cancelled the third strike day and called the MoU 'very strong' and almost ready to sign, while CENTCOM kept tanker enforcement running in the same 24-hour window. The administration is simultaneously withdrawing the military pressure it claims drove the deal and sustaining the enforcement campaign it is trying to trade away.