Lead
Riyadh, March 15 — Iran’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Alireza Enayati, told Reuters in a written response that relations between Tehran and Arab Gulf states need a “serious review” in light of the U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran. He denied Iranian responsibility for recent strikes on Saudi oil facilities, including incidents at Ras Tanura and attempted attacks on Shaybah. The remarks come amid more than 2,000 missile and drone incidents in the Gulf since the outbreak of the conflict on February 28. Enayati also urged reduced external influence and deeper regional cooperation to restore prosperity.
Key Takeaways
- Since February 28, Gulf countries have experienced over 2,000 missile and drone strikes, with targets ranging from U.S. missions and bases to critical energy infrastructure.
- Iran’s ambassador said Tehran should not be blamed for attacks on Saudi oil sites, and asserted Iran has targeted U.S. and Israeli interests rather than Gulf energy facilities.
- Saudi-Iran diplomatic ties were fully restored in 2023 after years of rivalry and proxy competition across the region.
- The UAE, which normalized relations with Israel in 2020, has borne a large share of strikes, but all Gulf states report impacts and have publicly condemned Iran.
- Enayati called for closer integration among the six GCC states plus Iraq and Iran, arguing that dependence on external powers has weakened regional stability.
- Saudi statements list attacks concentrated in the eastern oil-producing province, Prince Sultan Airbase, and the capital’s Diplomatic Quarter.
- Behind the scenes, some Gulf officials are expressing frustration with U.S. security guarantees that have drawn them into a conflict they did not seek.
Background
The Gulf has been a fault line of regional competition for decades, with Iran and several Arab states backing opposing actors across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. After a period of intense hostility, Riyadh and Tehran reopened full diplomatic channels in 2023, a rapprochement designed to reduce direct confrontation and lower the risk of broader escalation.
That detente has been tested since the outbreak of open hostilities on February 28, when a conflict widely characterized as involving U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets escalated into a series of retaliatory and proxy operations across the region. Gulf states — reliant on secure shipping lanes and stable hydrocarbon output — face a new calculation about the cost of external security dependence versus regional self-reliance.
The UAE’s 2020 normalization with Israel and the continuing role of U.S. military forces have reshaped the security landscape, prompting some Gulf capitals to publicly distance themselves from the conflict while privately lobbying for protections and clearer guarantees.
Main Event
In his written comments to Reuters, Ambassador Enayati framed the current situation as one imposed on Iran and its neighbors by external actors. He said the region’s post-1970s order reflected exclusionary practices and overreliance on outside powers, and that a strategic reassessment was necessary to allow Gulf economies to flourish without being pulled into distant conflicts.
On attribution, Enayati emphatically denied that Tehran carried out strikes on Saudi oil installations, saying Iran would have claimed responsibility if it had. He did not identify alternative perpetrators. Saudi defense ministry briefings have catalogued attacks but have not publicly assigned blame for each incident.
The ambassador described ongoing technical and diplomatic contacts with Saudi officials, citing cooperation on the return of Iranian pilgrims and medical assistance for Iranians in the kingdom. He added that Riyadh had publicly assured its territory would not be used to attack Iran, and that Tehran and Riyadh were discussing the implications of that pledge.
Enayati said a resolution to the crisis required the United States and Israel to stop their operations against Iran, that regional countries refrain from involvement, and that international guarantees be established to prevent recurrence — conditions he said would allow focus to shift back to regional development.
Analysis & Implications
The ambassador’s call for a “serious review” signals Tehran’s effort to reframe the narrative from confrontation to regionalism. If Gulf states accept deeper political and economic ties with Iran, it could reduce incentives for proxy escalation but would require significant confidence-building measures and verification arrangements.
Economically, repeated attacks on facilities like Ras Tanura and attempted strikes near Shaybah underscore how vulnerable global energy supplies are to regional conflict. Insurers, shipping firms and oil traders are likely to price in higher premiums and risk, keeping volatility elevated in energy markets until security stabilizes.
Politically, the request to limit external actors’ role challenges the existing security architecture in which the U.S. plays a central guarantor role. Shifting toward a more autonomous regional security framework would take years and substantial institutional investment, and could produce divisions among Gulf states with different threat perceptions.
In the short term, the most immediate risk is episodic escalation: misattribution of attacks, retaliatory strikes, or operations by non-state actors that bypass state controls. Absent a credible de-escalation mechanism and international guarantees — the conditions Enayati outlined — Gulf states will continue to face the dual pressures of protecting energy infrastructure and avoiding entanglement in a wider war.
Comparison & Data
| Period | Reported Incidents | Primary Targets |
|---|---|---|
| Since Feb 28 (to Mar 15) | Over 2,000 | U.S. missions/bases; oil facilities; ports; airports; hotels; residences |
| 2020 | Diplomatic normalization | UAE–Israel normalization (diplomatic shift) |
| 2023 | Diplomatic milestone | Saudi–Iran re-establishment of ties |
The table places the recent spike in attacks in the immediate context of two diplomatic pivots: the UAE’s 2020 normalization with Israel and the Saudi–Iran diplomatic reset in 2023. While numbers for incidents are drawn from aggregated public statements, precise attribution for many individual strikes remains contested.
Reactions & Quotes
Iran’s envoy reiterated Tehran’s position in brief, pointed language and framed the conflict as externally driven.
“Iran is not the party responsible for these attacks, and if Iran had carried them out, it would have announced it.”
Alireza Enayati, Iran’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia
Regional analysts and some Gulf officials privately express unease at being drawn into a war that began beyond their borders; public statements, however, remain cautious and focused on protecting citizens and infrastructure.
“Gulf states face a choice between deeper regional cooperation or continued reliance on external guarantees that may entangle them in conflicts.”
Regional analyst (commenting on Gulf security dynamics)
Unconfirmed
- The identity of the actors responsible for many individual attacks on Gulf infrastructure remains unverified; official attributions vary or are omitted.
- Claims that Tehran’s operations are limited strictly to U.S. and Israeli targets have not been independently corroborated for every incident cited.
- The extent and terms of any behind-the-scenes diplomatic exchanges between Tehran and Riyadh have not been publicly disclosed in detail.
Bottom Line
Enayati’s statements underscore Tehran’s bid to shift discourse from blame to a proposal for regional realignment that minimizes outside intervention. Whether Gulf capitals accept that framing depends on immediate security needs, economic calculations and domestic political pressures within each state.
Practical steps toward the ambassador’s vision — deeper GCC+Iraq+Iran ties and reduced external reliance — would demand robust verification, third-party guarantees and phased confidence-building measures. In the near term, energy markets and regional security will remain sensitive to episodic strikes and the risk of miscalculation.