How are Gulf and Western leaders responding to US-Israeli attacks on Iran? | DW News

Recent Escalations in the Gulf: A Detailed Analysis

Key Concepts:

• Retaliatory Strikes: Military actions taken in response to perceived aggression.
• De-escalation: Actions taken to reduce tensions and prevent further conflict.
• Neoconservatism: A political ideology advocating assertive foreign policy, including military interventionism.
• Decapitation Strike: A targeted military operation aimed at removing a country’s leadership.
• Maximalist Goals: Objectives that are overly ambitious and difficult to achieve.
• Airspace Closure: Temporary prohibition of civilian aircraft from entering a designated airspace.
• Ballistic Missile Program: Development and production of missiles capable of carrying nuclear or conventional warheads.

I. Initial Attacks and Regional Impact

The Gulf region is experiencing a significant escalation of conflict following Iranian retaliatory strikes. These strikes, involving waves of missiles and drones, have targeted multiple countries including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, and Kuwait. Iran claims these attacks are directed at American bases within the region. The immediate impact has been substantial, with major airlines cancelling flights and several countries – Israel, the UAE, and Qatar – closing their airspace, leading to diversions of flights destined for cities like Tel Aviv. Dubai International Airport has suspended all flights indefinitely, advising passengers to avoid the airport and check with airlines for updates. This disruption represents a major upheaval for air travel in a typically busy region.

II. Situation in Dubai: On-the-Ground Report

Journalist Emily Gordine, reporting from Dubai, describes a tense atmosphere. Drones have been observed near the Burj Khalifa, and intermittent explosions are heard as Emirati air defenses intercept incoming attacks. A hotel on the Palm Jumeirah was reportedly struck, with video footage showing resulting fires. A key concern is the lack of shelter infrastructure in Dubai; the city was not designed with air raid shelters, leaving residents and tourists with limited options for protection. Gordine highlights that Dubai had previously been considered a safe haven, attracting tourists despite regional conflict warnings, and this perception is now being challenged. While warnings of potential attacks existed, the targeting of civilian areas and the proximity of drones to central Dubai were unexpected. Notably, Dubai residents are not receiving air raid alerts via mobile phones, relying instead on hearing the interceptions by air defenses to recognize a threat. The Emirati air defenses are reportedly receiving support from the US military, which has significantly increased its presence in the region.

III. German Government Response & International Law Concerns

Germany’s government is holding crisis talks, with Chancellor Scholz engaging in numerous phone calls with international leaders. The government’s statement is described as “carefully worded,” criticizing Iran for failing to agree to limitations on its nuclear and ballistic missile programs while implicitly supporting the US and Israel. However, the statement also hints at concern and calls for a resumption of negotiations to lower regional risks. Richard Walker, Chief International Editor, points out this cautious approach reflects a dilemma for European nations. They are hesitant to fully endorse actions lacking UN Security Council backing and potentially violating international law. He emphasizes that the current situation does not meet the criteria for self-defense under international law. This raises concerns about potential accusations of double standards, given Europe’s strong stance on the legality of the Ukraine war. French President Macron is taking a slightly bolder stance, warning of “grave consequences” and intending to raise the issue at the UN Security Council.

IV. US Motivations and Objectives

Walker identifies the US action as a “war of choice,” not driven by an immediate, existential threat. He notes that the US military buildup has been underway for some time, potentially capitalizing on a perceived weakening of Iran following previous events. Donald Trump’s statement reveals a multifaceted set of goals: dismantling Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, crippling its navy, further hindering its nuclear program, and ultimately achieving regime change. Trump directly called on the Iranian military to lay down arms and urged the Iranian people to “take over your government.” This rhetoric is described as reminiscent of neoconservative policies that fueled the 2003 Iraq War, a conflict Trump previously criticized. The approach differs from the Iraq invasion, as Trump appears to favor regime change initiated by the Iranian people themselves, rather than direct US occupation. Walker references the “break it, you own it” principle articulated by Colin Powell, contrasting it with Trump’s apparent strategy of “break it, you own it” directed at the Iranian populace.

V. Regional Ramifications and Potential Escalation

Amena Shell, Head of the Middle East and North Africa division at the Heinrich Böll Foundation, suggests the current actions could be the “first step into a larger escalation,” noting Israeli planning for the next four days. She cautions that achieving a swift victory is often unrealistic in the region. Shell highlights the surprising resilience of the Iranian regime, despite widespread protests, and the intact nature of its security apparatus. She suggests a likely scenario of infighting within the regime if it were to fall, potentially leading to a continuation of existing policies. She also points out that the US and Israel’s actions send a message that negotiations are unreliable, and that military force remains a viable option. Shell expresses concern that if the US and Israel fail to achieve their goals, a pattern of escalating military strikes could emerge, leading to a prolonged period of regional instability. She emphasizes the ambiguity of the stated goals – regime change, nuclear program, ballistic program – and the difficulty in defining what constitutes “success,” making it unclear when the conflict might end.

VI. Data & Statistics

• Multiple countries targeted: Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, Kuwait.
• Dubai International Airport: All flights suspended indefinitely.
• US Military Buildup: Significant increase in military capabilities in the region over the past few weeks.
• Iranian Nuclear Program: Previously set back by US actions last year.

Conclusion:

The current situation in the Gulf represents a dangerous escalation of tensions, driven by US and Israeli actions aimed at curbing Iran’s regional influence and nuclear ambitions. The attacks have already disrupted air travel and created a tense atmosphere in major cities like Dubai. While the US and Israel have articulated ambitious goals, including regime change, the path forward is fraught with uncertainty and the potential for further conflict. The cautious response from European nations reflects concerns about international law and the potential for unintended consequences. The situation demands careful diplomacy and a clear understanding of the complex dynamics at play to prevent a wider regional war.