Khaled Mohamed Batarfi

Published on: July 14, 2026: 11:02 AM GST Last update: July 14, 2026: 11:04 AM GST

Reading mode

100% font size

Listen to the article: The audio text is automatically generated by an automated system

0:00

4 minutes to read

The Gulf region is witnessing one of its most sensitive phases in years, with escalating military tension and expanding operations to include maritime corridors, and an increasing frequency of targeting ships and neighboring countries, at a time when Washington and Tehran are exchanging military strikes and messages. This scene raises a fundamental question: Is what is happening just a new round of escalation, or are we facing a strategic shift that could redraw the equations of regional security? Amid these developments, the Saudi position has emerged clearly in condemning any aggression against ships or brotherly states, a position that reflects not an immediate reaction but rather a consistent policy based on respect for the sovereignty of states, rejection of the use of force to impose facts, and protection of the security of maritime corridors that represent a vital artery for the global economy. Freedom of navigation is not only an interest for the Gulf states, but a fundamental pillar for the stability of international trade and energy markets. The danger of the crisis increases when threats extend to the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most important maritime corridors in the world. The strait is not a national passage subject to the will of a single state, but an international crossroads through which a large proportion of global oil and gas exports pass. Any attempt to disrupt navigation there, whether by closure, threat, mining, or targeting ships, does not represent a challenge to a specific state, but rather affects the interests of the entire international community and opens the door to multiple reactions that go beyond the regional framework. The repercussions of the escalation do not stop at maritime navigation, but extend to the security of neighboring countries. If the circle of targeting expands to include the territories of states that are not direct parties to the conflict, then that represents a departure from the rules of international law and the UN Charter, and leads to widening the circle of conflict instead of containing it. It also grants affected states greater legitimacy to enhance their defensive measures, and increases the isolation of the party that expands the scope of confrontation. In contrast, the air defense systems in a number of countries in the region have shown an advanced level of efficiency in dealing with air threats, which reflects years of investment in building deterrence capabilities, developing early warning systems, and enhancing defense coordination. However, military success does not negate the fact that continued attacks raise the political and security cost for the entire region, and increase the likelihood of miscalculation and slipping into a wider confrontation. On the level of the US-Iranian confrontation, it is premature to talk about a complete collapse of the diplomatic path, although the current escalation represents one of its most dangerous phases. History shows that major conflicts often end at the negotiating table, but reaching it requires first stopping the escalation, providing a minimum of trust, and preparing conditions that allow for a return to dialogue. Often, parties use military force to improve their negotiating positions, not to close the door to negotiation permanently. Similarly, the assessment of the impact of military strikes should not be limited to the number of targeted sites or the size of direct losses, but should be measured by their ability to change the political behavior of the opposing party. Military operations may achieve tactical objectives, but they alone are not sufficient to produce sustainable strategic solutions if they are not accompanied by a clear political path that addresses the roots of the crisis. Hence, there is an urgent need for a balanced international and regional move to prevent the expansion of the conflict, affirm the principle of freedom of navigation, protect the sovereignty of states, and restore consideration for political solutions. Moreover, the Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia, have a direct interest in pushing towards containing the crisis, because they are the most aware of the human and economic cost of any comprehensive regional war, and the most keen on the stability of the region as a fundamental condition for development and prosperity. The security of the Gulf is inseparable from the security of the global economy, just as the security of maritime corridors is no longer just a regional issue, but has become part of the international security system. Therefore, the current phase requires prioritizing reason over the logic of escalation, returning to the rules of international law, and activating diplomacy before the limited confrontation turns into a regional crisis whose repercussions are difficult to contain. The region does not need a new war as much as it needs a regional security system based on respect for sovereignty, ensuring freedom of navigation, and resolving differences through dialogue, because stability is the real gain where the interests of the countries of the region and the world intersect. @kbatarfi, quoted from Al-Madinah

Advertorial

Advertorial

Disclaimer: All published articles represent the views of their authors only.