As the US celebrates its 250th anniversary of independence this year, the story of a nation that has consolidated its position as the most influential power in the international system is remembered. However, this celebration coincides with a period of growing questions about Washington's image among its allies, the shifts in its foreign policy, and its alignment with the alliance system it has built over decades.
One of the regions where this questioning is most pronounced is the Gulf countries, which have maintained strategic relations with Washington since the middle of the last century. According to an analysis published on Al Jazeera, as the messages sent by US administrations to their allies have diverged in recent years, a distinct 'political reproach' is being felt in Gulf capitals.
Historical partnership and moments of rupture
Relations that began with the historic meeting between founding King Abdulaziz bin Abdulrahman Al Saud and US President Franklin Roosevelt on the USS Quincy have been shaped by strategic interests, despite changing administrations and international priorities. Although disagreements arose during President Ronald Reagan's tenure over issues such as Saudi Arabia's cooperation with China, these did not touch the core of the alliance.
The US leadership of the international coalition formed to liberate Kuwait in 1991 reinforced the concept of security partnership and entrenched the belief that the security of the Gulf was part of America's top-tier interests. This understanding was later reflected in comprehensive defense agreements, the spread of US military bases across the region, and decades-long security cooperation mechanisms.
But things have changed in recent years. The Gulf crisis that erupted after Donald Trump's visit to Riyadh during his first term left deep scars on the structure of the Gulf Cooperation Council and raised questions about the US role in managing disputes among allies.
Second Trump term and military conflict with Iran
Trump's second term, however, began amid military conflict with Iran, once again putting the region to a severe test. According to the analysis, the real question is now being asked more urgently: Does the US still view the security of the Gulf as part of its own strategic security?
This question has begun to find its way not only into media and public debates but also, to varying degrees, into official political discourse. In Gulf capitals, there is a prevailing sense that recent military decisions were taken without sufficient consultation with the countries bearing the consequences of the escalation in the region. The impression is growing that Israel's security concerns are more decisive in the US decision-making process than those of its Gulf partners.
This impression is further reinforced when the speed of providing air defense systems or protection to Israel comes up. On the Gulf side, by contrast, the feeling is gaining ground that regional security has become part of secondary calculations in conflict management.
The 'acceptable cost' debate
The analysis stresses that this is not an emotional issue but one directly related to the nature of the alliance concept. States build their alliances on the basis of reciprocity of interests and responsibilities, and consultation on decisions that directly affect the security of all parties. Therefore, the portrayal of the possibility of Gulf countries being subjected to Iranian attacks as within the 'expected scenario' and the presentation of the danger facing regional countries as an 'acceptable cost' is seen as a discourse whose political implications go beyond the event itself.
Such a discourse redefines the limits of US commitments to its partners and initiates a legitimate debate about the nature of the security guarantees that have formed the basis of the relationship for decades.
Iran's alternative narrative and the facts
In response, Iran is trying to present a different narrative. According to Tehran, US military bases in the Gulf have made regional countries targets of Iranian attacks, and these bases have failed to provide the security for which they were established. However, according to the analysis, this narrative falls short when tested against the facts. Iranian attacks occurred shortly after the start of the military conflict and before it was confirmed that the bases in question were being used in operations.
Moreover, the US military presence is not limited to the Gulf; similar arrangements exist in many countries, notably the Incirlik Base in Turkey. Therefore, attributing the targeting of the Gulf solely to the presence of bases means ignoring Iran's conflict management strategy and the deterrence messages it seeks to convey.
The analysis notes that the presence of military bases is based on agreements signed by sovereign states in line with their own security interests, and these agreements cannot be reduced to a narrative that seeks to shift the responsibility for Iran's military choices onto others.
The US's internal transformation and its international repercussions
Recent developments are broadening the debate toward the US's own image. Debates in American society over immigration, citizenship, executive powers, and relations with the Supreme Court point to internal transformations that go beyond foreign policy. These transformations raise the question of whether the US is redefining its political model or going through a temporary phase.
The power of the US rested not only on its military and economic capacity but also on its political model and its ability to present itself as a state of institutions governed by stable constitutional rules. Therefore, any change in this image automatically reflects on its international standing and the level of trust its allies place in it.
Not a rupture, but a search for rebalancing
From the Gulf perspective, the debate is not focused on a desire to distance from the US. For this is compatible neither with the nature of mutual interests nor with the economic and military intertwining between the two sides. Gulf countries have massive investments in the US economy; there is long-standing cooperation in energy, trade, and security. For decades, Gulf countries played an influential role in stabilizing global oil markets and many times took decisions that prioritized international economic stability even when they conflicted with their direct interests.
Therefore, the review of relations with Washington is not a quest for rupture; it means a search for a more balanced formula based on clarity of commitments, respect for mutual interests, and the expansion of consultation on matters concerning regional security. This also means diversifying international partnerships, developing national defense industries, and strengthening regional cooperation. These are options that have become part of the Gulf's strategic thinking in recent years and will not be limited to the current crisis.
Similar questioning in NATO
One of the striking points in the analysis is that this debate is not unique to the Gulf. Even within NATO, calls are growing to reassess the extent of dependence on the US and to build more independent European defense capabilities. If such reviews are taking place among the countries that form the world's tightest military alliance, it is only natural that similar questioning, shaped by national interest calculations, regional security balances, and the rapid transformations in the structure of the international system, is occurring in the Gulf region.
Therefore, the reproach from ally to ally should be interpreted not as a crisis in the relationship, but as an attempt to correct course before the trust gap widens. Alliances that last for decades are built not on displays of political courtesy, but on frankness and the review of commitments in light of changing circumstances. This review appears more necessary than ever as the Middle East enters a new phase in which the balance of power is shifting, the nature of threats is changing, and clarity of vision among allies has become essential for the sustainability of any viable strategic partnership.
