Classified CIA Analysis Finds Trump Can’t Count on Gulf Allies for Wider Iran War
A secret CIA assessment found Washington’s Gulf allies are split over how far to back the U.S. militarily in the Strait of Hormuz.
A classified CIA analysis circulating this week found that Washington’s Gulf allies are split over how much military support to provide for the Trump administration’s war against Iran, sources familiar with the assessment told Capital & Empire. The U.S. intelligence community assessment suggested that several key Gulf partners favor negotiations with Tehran and are increasingly reluctant to provide the access and political backing the U.S. and Israel would need to restart and widen the conflict.
The analysis determined that the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain would prefer if the U.S. and Israel kept striking Iran. Abu Dhabi appears to believe that Israeli Iron Dome batteries and personnel deployed to the UAE will help shield the country from the worst of any future Iranian retaliation, according to the assessment, helping explain its willingness to support further escalation despite having absorbed more Iranian strikes than any other Gulf state.
The UAE has emerged as the most hawkish Gulf state in part because it has borne the brunt of Iran’s retaliation. Iranian missile and drone strikes have hit Emirati energy facilities, airports, and hotels, while disruptions to air travel through Dubai challenged the image of stability and safety that underpins the country’s role as a global hub for tourism and commerce. Emirati leaders are furious and have doubled down on their alignment with the U.S. and Israel. The Wall Street Journal reported this week that the UAE has also carried out covert strikes inside Iran, including an attack on an oil refinery, though the Emirati government has not publicly acknowledged those attacks.
The intelligence community’s findings broadly align with the observations of Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and expert on U.S.-Iran relations. The fact that the UAE and Bahrain favor continued war is consistent with their conduct, Parsi said. Both governments fear that if Washington reaches a deal with Tehran, they will be left to contend with what they see as a more dangerous Iran without firm U.S. backing.
“This is part of the tremendous strategic insanity that the UAE and Bahrain engaged in by signing on to the Abraham Accords in the first place,” Parsi told Capital & Empire. “They made themselves frontline states against Iran. Now they’re in too deep and cannot extract themselves out of it.”
According to the intelligence community’s analysis, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait support negotiations between the U.S. and Iran rather than further escalation. The finding does not mean Riyadh has remained on the sidelines, as Reuters reported Tuesday that Saudi Arabia also carried out covert retaliatory strikes inside Iran in late March. But Saudi officials have simultaneously moved to constrain U.S. military options, including the recent decision to deny the U.S. access, basing, and overflight rights (ABO), a move that appeared to have effectively killed “Project Freedom” – a planned naval operation to escort commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
Parsi said Saudi Arabia’s shift reflects a reassessment of a conflict it initially supported. “The Saudis were at the highest levels pushing for this war,” he said. “They have come to regret it.”
Saudi Arabia stood by its decision to deny the U.S. military access to its bases and airspace for the operation despite a personal appeal from President Donald Trump to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The decision underscored Riyadh’s growing reluctance to be drawn into U.S. military escalations that threaten its economic interests and broader effort to reduce dependence on Washington.
Oman, the analysis found, opposes the U.S. military blockade of Iranian ports, military action against Iran, and may be open to joint administration of the Strait of Hormuz with Iran. Oman – the only Gulf state to remain friendly with Iran throughout the war – has long served as a backchannel between Iran and the U.S. Muscat hosted indirect U.S.-Iran nuclear talks earlier this year and played a key role in facilitating the negotiations that eventually led to the 2015 nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
The CIA’s internal assessments paint a more restrained picture of the conflict than the Trump administration’s public declarations. A separate CIA analysis leaked to media outlets earlier this month concluded that Iran can survive the U.S. naval blockade for at least three to four months before experiencing severe economic consequences – directly contradicting Trump’s claim that Iran is on the verge of collapse.
The CIA assessment this week reflects an emerging recognition within the U.S. intelligence community that even as the Gulf states remain deeply embedded in America’s security architecture, they are becoming more selective about when they align with Washington to protect their own economic and strategic interests.
Before the war, the U.S. military presence in the Gulf was widely viewed as a deterrent against Iran and other regional actors challenging U.S. power. The conflict exposed that the U.S. military footprint was a massive liability all along. The same network of American bases created a target-rich environment that enabled Iran to wage a campaign of horizontal escalation, striking U.S. and allied infrastructure and heightening political instability across the region.
“The GCC, the fact is, doesn’t exist any longer,” Parsi said. “The degree of division there now is beyond what we have seen in the past, effectively making them a non-entity. The geopolitical circumstances that brought about the GCC’s existence no longer exist.”