Gulf States Must Rethink Trillion-Dollar Defences After US-Iran War, IISS Warns

In the weeks before the ceasefire of 8 April, twelve states in the region, most of them in the Gulf, came under fire from Iran: 4,670 one-way attack drones and more than 1,400 ballistic missiles. Nearly half of that fire was aimed at the United Arab Emirates. That is the starting point of a new study from the International Institute for Strategic Studies, which concludes that the Gulf states will have to reconfigure defences that have cost them well over a trillion dollars.

Most of the incoming weapons were repelled. But the damage was still considerable. The report cites one estimate of harm to energy infrastructure that runs as high as $58bn (£43bn). That figure is one estimate among those the report draws on, not a settled total.

The IISS argues that the war exposed an uncomfortable fact for the Gulf monarchies. Their huge purchases of American weapons did not translate into American protection when it counted, and their own militaries were not adequately prepared for the attritional air war they faced. The report lists specific shortcomings: overwhelming reliance on US-supplied air and missile defence systems and munitions; a failure to integrate defences across the region; too little minesweeping capability; limited options for retaliation; and the prohibitive cost of using expensive, high-end systems to shoot down comparatively cheap drones and missiles.

The study goes further on the American relationship. It says decades-old defence and security partnerships with Washington failed to ensure adequate protection against Iranian aggression. It adds that US bases and partnerships may, if anything, have given Iran another pretext to strike the Gulf states. Public opinion in the Gulf, the report says, has been moving on the United States, from security provider to strategic liability.

On whether the divided Gulf states should seek a new non-aggression pact with Iran, the report takes no position. It does warn of a political trap in any American drawdown. Iran would present a reduction or full withdrawal of US forces as a strategic success and a vindication of its steadfastness, and would use it to embarrass the Gulf states over their long courtship of US protection.

The study arrives as the debate is moving inside Washington too. Chris Murphy, the Democratic senator and member of the Senate foreign relations committee, said the US military is discussing whether it is worth rebuilding the damaged American bases in the Gulf. He said Gulf leaders want the US to rebuild and keep a presence in the region. But he asked what good a base is if, within 24 hours of a hot war starting, it is wiped off the map.

Murphy said it would be criminally incompetent stewardship of taxpayer dollars to rebuild bases that are blown up within hours of the next war beginning. The US, he said, will need a smaller footprint, and the limiting principle should be what it can actually protect. In his view, the present footprint cannot be protected, and a base that cannot be protected is useless. He suggested that, at the very least, the US may need to move its bases in the eastern Mediterranean further from Iranian missiles.

What to watch now is which way the Gulf capitals lean: toward integrated regional defence, toward a deal with Tehran, or toward a leaner American presence on their soil.