Missile strikes by Iran have brought the conflict to the edge of the Persian Gulf, reinforcing support for the joint campaign led by the United States and Israel.

Thunderous explosions and massive fireballs from missiles launched by Iran across the Gulf underscored a long-feared reality for regional leaders: Tehran can carry the fight directly to their territory. The attacks are likely to solidify Arab governments’ backing for joint action by the United States and Israel.

Even on the Palm Jumeirah — Dubai’s most exclusive enclave — blasts shook buildings and struck a luxury hotel, sending residents scrambling as missiles and interceptors streaked overhead. The scenes made clear that the conflict had spilled beyond Iran’s borders, just as Tehran had cautioned.

“What has now been demonstrated is that we — not the United States — are directly exposed,” said Ebtesam Al-Ketbi of the Emirates Policy Center. “When Iran attacked, it hit the Gulf first, claiming it was targeting U.S. bases.”

Analysts say Tehran’s strikes are designed to show that no American ally in the region is out of reach and to increase the price of supporting Washington’s campaign. But they warn that any error in judgment could turn calibrated signaling into full-scale war.

Gulf officials argue that by hitting oil-producing neighbors, Iran is widening the battlefield and putting global energy supplies at risk, not merely regional stability. For rapidly expanding economies such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates — all reliant on open skies, safe sea lanes and steady trade — a broader confrontation would be severely destabilizing.

By casting the confrontation as a campaign for regime change in Iran, President Donald Trump has raised the stakes, increasing the likelihood that Tehran could retaliate more aggressively, observers say.

If Iran were to misjudge and directly attack Gulf Cooperation Council states, the nature of the conflict would shift dramatically. Regional governments would be under intense pressure to respond as lives and strategic assets come under threat.

Some Gulf analysts contend that Iran is undermining its own strategic interests by striking neighboring states. While Tehran insists it is targeting U.S. military installations, Gulf capitals view the attacks as clear violations of sovereignty.

In recent indirect talks with Washington aimed at defusing tensions, Iran signaled willingness to negotiate over its nuclear program but refused to discuss its ballistic missile arsenal or its backing of regional militias. Tehran has suggested that such issues be handled in a regional dialogue excluding the United States — a proposal Gulf states argue would weaken rather than strengthen the existing security framework, given their longstanding reliance on U.S. protection.

From their perspective, Iran’s missile capabilities and network of proxies pose immediate threats. Without external security guarantors, they see little credibility in a regional-only arrangement.

Meanwhile, Trump’s rhetoric has shifted notably. Whereas he previously described potential U.S. strikes as leverage to secure a nuclear agreement, he has more recently framed them in terms that imply regime change. Unlike the large-scale 2003 invasion of Iraq under George W. Bush, which involved a prolonged troop deployment and occupation, the current strategy appears focused on limited air operations designed to achieve swift, visible outcomes while minimizing American casualties and domestic political fallout.

The bet is that a short, decisive campaign would yield political benefits, whereas a drawn-out war — especially one disrupting oil flows or the broader economy — could carry heavy costs.

Should the conflict expand to include U.S. bases, diplomatic missions, energy infrastructure, or the crucial maritime corridor of the Strait of Hormuz, the economic and political repercussions for the United States, the Gulf, and global markets would escalate sharply.

Sources: Reuters