Analysis by Shahid Shah

The latest escalation in the Middle East has revived a long-standing debate across the Muslim world: whether U.S. security strategy in the region is deepening divisions among Muslim-majority states and pushing them toward confrontation with one another.

For critics of Washington’s approach, the recent joint U.S.–Israeli strikes on Iran -- reportedly launched with operational support from American bases across Gulf states -- represent more than a military campaign. They see it as the culmination of a broader geopolitical design that has gradually entangled Arab countries in a conflict that risks turning regional fault lines into open hostility.

Supporters of this view argue that Israel has long sought to reshape the Middle East security order in a way that neutralizes perceived threats while preventing the emergence of a unified Arab front. They point to the deepening ties between Israel and some Gulf states following the Abraham Accords, including normalization with the United Arab Emirates, as a turning point that altered traditional regional alignments.

Over time, shifting alliances have occasionally exposed policy differences within the Gulf bloc itself. Observers cite divergent positions between the UAE and Saudi Arabia on regional issues such as Yemen as evidence of emerging rivalries. While Riyadh has historically positioned itself as a leading voice in the Arab and Islamic world, new security partnerships and independent foreign policy moves by other Gulf capitals, especially the UAE, have sometimes complicated the issues.

The latest crisis, triggered by U.S.-Israeli military action against Iran under President Donald Trump, has intensified these tensions.

Reports that American facilities in Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, and the UAE were used in operations against Iranian targets have fueled debate within the region about sovereignty and strategic autonomy.

In retaliation, Iran targeted U.S. military assets across parts of the Gulf, placing host nations in the direct line of confrontation.

Analysts warn that such developments risk transforming geopolitical competition into sectarian polarization, particularly given Iran’s symbolic position as a leading Shia-majority state in a region marked by Sunni-Shia sensitivities.

For many in the Arab world, the core question is strategic: To what extent should regional security depend on external powers? Gulf states have hosted Western military bases for decades, seeing them as deterrents against external threats. However, critics argue that these arrangements can also draw host countries into broader conflicts beyond their control.

Some commentators now frame the situation as a defining test for Arab unity. They contend that avoiding long-term instability will require coordinated diplomacy -- not only among Gulf Cooperation Council members but also through renewed engagement with Iran. Without such efforts, they warn, a prolonged confrontation could inflame domestic tensions and deepen regional fragmentation, which has been Israel's ambition for a long time. 

As tensions simmer, calls for restraint, regional dialogue, and strategic recalibration are growing louder -- reflecting a widespread desire to prevent a geopolitical struggle from becoming a broader internal rift within the Muslim world.

Some analysts argue that Arab countries should now consider acting collectively to reassess the long-standing presence of U.S. and other Western military forces in the region. They contend that if Gulf and wider Arab states believe foreign bases are drawing them into external conflicts, a coordinated diplomatic approach -- rather than unilateral moves -- would be essential.

According to this view, no single country could take such a step alone without facing significant political, economic, or security pressure. Any recalibration of defense arrangements would require unity among regional governments and a carefully managed transition to avoid destabilizing existing security structures.

Proponents frame this as a long-term strategic decision tied to sovereignty and regional stability, arguing that collective dialogue and consensus-building would be necessary to secure a more independent future security framework. Critics, however, caution that abrupt changes could create new vulnerabilities, underscoring the complexity of any such move.

*Opinions expressed in this article are the writer's own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of The South Asia Times