Gulf Leaders Rally With US Against Iran Attacks, Showing Unity

The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, told Fox News that Gulf nations are reacting sharply to Iran’s recent strikes and that their outrage is creating a rare unity in the region, which is undermining Tehran’s strategy of sowing division. He described meetings with nearly every ambassador in the Gulf and said their populations are feeling directly attacked, a dynamic that is hardening alliances rather than breaking them. The evolving posture of Gulf states, combined with a robust U.S. response, signals a new phase of deterrence and regional pushback. It is clear the main story is Tehran’s miscalculation and the resulting cohesion among its neighbors, and this is .

Ambassador Waltz framed Iran’s campaign as an attempt to intimidate and fragment the Gulf, striking infrastructure and economic targets to force political distance from Washington. Instead, he reports the opposite effect: the attacks have rallied governments and publics toward a more united front. That shift alters the strategic picture; states that once hedged are now signaling they will defend their sovereignty and vital infrastructure. In short, Iran’s tactic to isolate its neighbors appears to have backfired badly.

Ambassador Waltz said:

Look, it’s clearly part of Iran’s strategy, Martha, to sow discord, to attack their neighbors, our allies across the Gulf, and try to separate them from Washington by attacking their infrastructure, their ports, their oil and natural gas facilities, even their international airports, and otherwise. And it’s doing the exact opposite. It is backfiring on Iran. I have met with nearly every ambassador in the Gulf just in the last 48 hours. I’ve never seen them more unified. I’ve never seen them more outraged. I’ve talked to them quite a bit. Their population is under attack. And I think you’re going to see that unity get more and more solid as the days go on. 

Across the region, leaders are recalibrating their security thinking. Where past U.S. administrations leaned toward diplomacy that some saw as appeasement, the current approach emphasizes strong deterrence and direct consequences for aggression. That has changed how Gulf capitals evaluate threats and their relationships with Tehran. When hostile acts hit economic lifelines like ports and energy facilities, the political cost of inaction becomes intolerable.

The contrast with prior years is stark. During the Obama era, critics argued that a softer stance emboldened Iran, and some claim subsequent administrations continued that pattern. Now, decisive military and diplomatic pressure has reshaped incentives and exposed Tehran’s vulnerabilities. The scene described by Ambassador Waltz shows a region less inclined to tolerate chronic harassment and more willing to coordinate security responses with Washington.

Iran misjudged the resilience and resolve of its neighbors, counting on fear and fragmentation to loosen alliances with the United States. Rather than cowing them, the attacks have driven Gulf states closer together and closer to robust partnership with the U.S. That unity makes Tehran’s options narrower and its room for maneuver smaller, complicating any effort to export instability across the Strait of Hormuz and beyond. The tactical benefits Iran once enjoyed no longer apply in the same way.

This moment elevates the value of allied cooperation. When infrastructure and commerce are targeted, regional leaders face immediate pressures from their own populations to respond and to prevent repeat strikes. Shared intelligence, defensive coordination, and visible support from a strong U.S. policy send a clear message: aggression will carry a price. That calculation is central to turning deterrence back on.

Public sentiment in Gulf states now tracks leadership decisions more directly, with citizens demanding protection of jobs, energy supplies, and ports. The result is a political environment that favors hardened stances over the old cycle of complaints and concessions. For the United States, this alignment offers an opportunity to consolidate strategic partnerships while pressuring Iran into recalculating its course.

The immediate future will show whether this unity translates into long-term policy changes and durable defense arrangements. But for now, the narrative is unmistakable: Iran’s campaign of attacks aimed at isolation has prompted a countermobilization. That countermobilization may define the next phase of regional security and the limits of Tehran’s ambitions.