Officials from Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states have responded cautiously to the prospect of an Iran-Israel-US ceasefire , as the war launched by Israel and the US against Iran which began on 28 February continues to engulf the Middle East and rattle the global economy. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Jordan issued a joint statement on Wednesday condemning Iranian attacks as well as those launched by Iran-aligned militias from Iraq.
The statement comes amid conflicting narratives from Tehran and Washington, with US President Donald Trump claiming a ceasefire was in the works, while Iran has repeatedly denied this. The New Arab takes a look at how Gulf states have responded so far. Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia joined other countries in the region in condemning attacks by Iran-aligned factions operating from Iraq against neighbouring states and their infrastructure, but has not explicitly commented on the prospect of a ceasefire. Reports indicate that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Kuwait’s Emir, Mishal Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, discussed the urgent need for an immediate halt to hostilities in a recent phone call. However, Riyadh has simultaneously reaffirmed its right to self-defence in the face of Iranian attacks. "Saudi Arabia’s patience with Iranian attacks is not unlimited," Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan said last week following strikes on Gulf energy infrastructure. "Any belief that Gulf countries are incapable of responding is a miscalculation."
Saudi Arabia’s cautious posture comes despite its diplomatic rapprochement with Tehran , which in 2023 led to Riyadh and Tehran restoring ties in a China-brokered deal. United Arab Emirates The UAE has condemned Iranian attacks, whether carried out directly or through regional proxies, and has called on Iraq to prevent its territory from being used to launch strikes against neighbouring countries. Emirati officials have openly suggested that a premature end to the war could leave the country more exposed to future threats. Presidential adviser Anwar Gargash stressed in a Sunday post on X that "our thinking does not stop at a ceasefire", calling instead for a broader strategy to ensure long-term regional stability. He said efforts must address Iran’s "nuclear threat, missiles, drones, and the intimidation of maritime straits," adding: "It is not reasonable for aggression to turn into a permanent state of threat".
Gargash had earlier warned that continued Iranian attacks could reshape regional alliances, noting that such actions may deepen Gulf security ties with Washington and expand Israel’s strategic role. "We’re not seeing 2,000 Israeli missiles and drones targeting us… We’re seeing 2,000 Iranian missiles and drones targeting us," he said during a policy forum on 18 March. UAE Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan echoed Gargash’s stance, writing in a Sunday post on X that the country would not be "blackmailed by terrorists". Meanwhile, UAE ambassador to the United States Yousef Al Otaiba argued in a Wall Street Journal op-ed published Wednesday that the conflict should not end prematurely, asserting that it must deliver a decisive outcome addressing the full scope of Iran’s threat. Recent comments by the officials reflect Abu Dhabi’s growing concern over attacks on civilian and energy infrastructure. Qatar Qatar has issued strong condemnations of Iranian strikes, while maintaining that it does not seek further escalation. The country has emphasised its right to defend itself against ongoing missile and drone attacks. Foreign ministry spokesman Majed bin Mohamed al-Ansari stated that Tehran must immediately halt its actions, stressing that "the responsibility to de-escalate lies entirely with the aggressor." He added: “The attacker should take an immediate decision to stop these unjustified attacks.” In a notable shift, Qatar has distanced itself from reported ceasefire mediation efforts. On Tuesday, al-Ansari confirmed that Doha was not involved in any current negotiations, adding pointedly: "I am not privy to the details of the current negotiations… If they exist." He nevertheless signalled that Qatar would be willing to assist if required. Al-Ansari also acknowledged a breakdown in trust between GCC states and Tehran, stating: "It’s now up to the Iranians, post this war of course, to decide how they’re going to rebuild the trust that was lost due to their attacks on our sovereignty." The move marks a departure from Qatar’s usual role as a key regional mediator in conflicts involving Gaza, Lebanon and Sudan. Oman Oman has taken a markedly different approach, continuing to advocate for diplomacy and de-escalation. Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi , who previously mediated US-Iran talks, has urged all sides to return to negotiations. "Whatever your view of Iran, this war is not of their making," he wrote in a Monday post on X, warning that the conflict is already causing widespread economic disruption and could worsen significantly if it continues. In earlier remarks, al-Busaidi described Iran’s retaliation against what it claims are American targets in neighbouring countries as "an inevitable, if deeply regrettable and completely unacceptable, result". He has also argued that Tehran had made meaningful concessions prior to the outbreak of war, suggesting diplomacy remained a viable path. "Faced with what both Israel and America described as a war designed to terminate the Islamic Republic, this was probably the only rational option available to the Iranian leadership," he said. Regional reports and speculation Amid these official positions, media reports have suggested that some Gulf states may be moving towards deeper involvement in the conflict. The Wall Street Journal reported that Saudi Arabia and the UAE could expand their roles, including allowing US forces greater operational access. Other outlets have indicated that discussions are taking place within the GCC about further weakening Iran’s military capabilities. However official statements from Gulf governments continue to reflect a mix of caution, strategic concern and, in most cases, a preference for diplomatic solutions over immediate ceasefire endorsement.