The Gulf States Reject the Use of Their Airspace to Strike Iran but Host American Bases That Will Receive the Response: The Inexplicable Military Contradiction

On February 13, 2026, the UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs officially announced that the country "will not allow the use of its airspace, territory, or waters in any hostile military operations against Iran, and will not provide any logistical support in this regard." Hours later, Saudi Arabia and Jordan confirmed a similar stance. Diplomatically, this is an understandable position from countries seeking to avoid regional conflict. But militarily, this statement makes no sense at all.

The reason is simple: the United States currently operates permanent military bases in Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and the UAE, in addition to logistical facilities in Saudi Arabia and Jordan. And when the Iranian Revolutionary Guard announced that it would respond to any American strikes against Iran "by targeting any American base," it was not talking about hypothetical bases in the ocean. It was referring to Camp As Sayliyah in Qatar, Al Dhafra Air Base in Abu Dhabi, and the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain.

When "No" Actually Means "Yes, But Without Responsibility"

The fundamental contradiction is this: the Gulf states do not want to appear as a party in any war against Iran. Yet at the same time, they provide the full infrastructure that Washington will use in this war - airports, ports, warehouses, and command and control. The only difference is that American planes will take off from aircraft carriers instead of land bases. This is a tactical difference, not a strategic one.

From an Iranian perspective, there is no difference. An Iranian ballistic missile does not distinguish between an American base used to launch an airstrike and an American base used only for logistical support and coordination. Targeting will be inevitable, and the collateral damage to Gulf infrastructure - civilian airports near military bases, desalination plants, oil facilities - will be significant.

The United States Lacks the Current Capability for a Long War Without Ground Bases

According to sources in the Pentagon, the current U.S. naval force in the region - a single carrier group (USS Abraham Lincoln) - is insufficient to conduct an extended air campaign against Iran for weeks. The operation would require at least two aircraft carriers, in addition to air support from land bases to ensure operational continuity. Delivering a second carrier (USS George H. W. Bush) would take at least two weeks.

In the absence of using Gulf airports, the United States will rely solely on carrier-based aircraft. This means:

• A limited number of daily air sorties (about 120-150 sorties compared to 300+ from land bases)
• Longer response times for targets deep in Iran
• Limited ability to strike moving Iranian ballistic missile platforms
• Difficulty in providing continuous defensive cover for the Gulf bases themselves in the event of an Iranian response

Simply put, "refusing to use the airspace" means nothing when the American bases that will coordinate and support the strikes are on your territory. It is an attempt to avoid political responsibility without changing the military reality.

$88 Billion in Military Deals at the World Defense Exhibition - No Strategic Independence

A week ago, Saudi Arabia celebrated signing military contracts worth $88 billion at the World Defense Exhibition 2026 in Riyadh. The official rhetoric was about "strategic independence" and "localizing the defense industry." But this week, we see the truth: the Gulf states do not even have enough sovereignty to say "no" to using their territory as bases for American operations.

The contradiction is not new. But it is now at its clearest. The Gulf states are spending hundreds of billions on American weapons, yet they cannot decide when and how to use their territory in war. They want American protection, but they fear the political cost of that protection. They want "strategic independence," but they lack the institutional or political capacity to achieve it.

The Impossible Choice: Between Involvement and Abandonment

The Gulf states now face an impossible choice:

Option One: Allow the use of airspace and airports - which means appearing as a direct party in the war against Iran, with all the political and security ramifications.

Option Two: Refuse the use of airspace - but continue to host American bases that will be targets for Iranian retaliation anyway.

Option Three (theoretical): Request the withdrawal of American forces - which means abandoning the only security umbrella these countries rely on in facing Iran.

The Gulf has currently chosen "Option Two," which is in fact a false choice. It is an attempt to gain American protection without paying the political price, but it will lead to paying the full military price.

What Gulf Governments Do Not Say

Gulf officials, in private meetings with the U.S. administration, have expressed concerns about potential catastrophic consequences:

• Closure of the Strait of Hormuz (20% of global oil exports pass through it)
• Cyberattacks on critical infrastructure
• Potential radioactive contamination from strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities
• Loss of investor confidence in a region heavily reliant on foreign direct investment

But these concerns do not translate into clear policy. The Gulf states do not want war, but they cannot prevent the use of their territory in it. They want sovereignty, but they have sold it for arms deals that do not guarantee real security.

The Lesson No One Learns

In my view, after more than three decades of heavy American military presence in the Gulf, the region still lacks a clear answer to a fundamental question: What are the terms of American protection?

There is no clear mutual defense treaty like NATO. There are no declared red lines. The American presence is more of an "arrangement" than a "commitment." And the difference between the two is now clearly evident: an arrangement that can be adjusted according to American interests, without real consultation with the hosts.

The Gulf states have rejected the use of their airspace. But American planes will take off from American bases on Gulf territory, supported by fuel and munitions stored in Gulf warehouses, to carry out operations that will provoke an Iranian response against Gulf targets. To say that these countries are "not a party" in the war is playing with words, not a defensive strategy.

The simple truth is: you cannot be neutral while a foreign army uses your territory as an operational platform. This is not neutrality. It is merely a refusal to acknowledge reality.