Study by the Jordanian Politics and Society Magazine: The American-Israeli-Iranian War Raises Questions About the U.S. Security Partnership with the Arab Gulf States

• The Jordanian Politics and Society Magazine (JPS) examines the impact of the American-Israeli-Iranian war on Gulf digital discourse concerning relations with the United States.
• The study analyzed 55,600 digital discussions across the Gulf region, generating more than half a million interactions.
• Less than 1% of Gulf discussions expressed support for the security partnership with the United States.
• 76.6% of Gulf digital discourse on the U.S. security partnership carried a negative tone, compared with 22.5% neutral news-oriented content.
• The war revived a central question across the Gulf: does the U.S. partnership still provide a credible security guarantee, or has the American presence become an additional source of vulnerability and targeting?
• Digital discourse developed through four major peaks linked to Iranian attacks, threatening statements, escalating U.S. positions, and the announcement of a ceasefire.
• U.S. military bases appeared in the discourse both as symbols of protection and as infrastructure that could place Gulf states within the targeting equation.
• Israel emerged in Gulf discussions as the factor that transformed U.S. bases in the Gulf into potential Iranian targets.
• China and Russia were not presented as direct alternatives to U.S. security protection, but rather as part of broader debates about power balances and the future of regional security.
• The study concludes with an open strategic question: was this merely a temporary digital reaction triggered by the war, or the beginning of a deeper shift in Gulf perceptions of the U.S. security umbrella?

A new analytical study conducted by the Politics and Society Institute on the impact of the American-Israeli-Iranian war on Gulf digital discourse regarding relations with the United States reveals that 76.6% of Gulf digital discussions concerning Washington reflected a negative attitude toward the U.S.-Gulf security partnership. Neutral news content accounted for 22.5%, while expressions of support for the partnership represented less than **1% of the overall discourse.

According to the study, these figures reflect more than a temporary emotional reaction to the conflict. They indicate a broader shift in Gulf digital discourse, moving from criticism of U.S. performance during the crisis toward deeper skepticism about the sustainability of a security framework that has long been a cornerstone of regional politics.

Published in the latest issue of the Jordanian Politics and Society Magazine, the study argues that the war not only sparked extensive Gulf debate about the military confrontation itself but also revived a more fundamental question within Gulf public consciousness: does the U.S. partnership continue to serve as a reliable security guarantee, or has the American military presence become, during periods of escalation, an additional source of risk?

The study monitored 55,600 original digital discussions generated by 29,800 unique users across the six Gulf Cooperation Council states: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman. These discussions generated 531,600 interactions and achieved a potential reach of 4.5 billion users. The analysis excluded coordinated troll activity and AI-generated content, focusing instead on authentic discussions in both Arabic and English that directly addressed the U.S. partnership and potential alternatives.

Researchers identified four major peaks in Gulf digital discourse, each associated with a significant development during the war. The first peak emerged in early March following direct Iranian attacks on U.S. bases and Gulf cities. At that stage, a central question dominated online discussions: why were U.S. bases unable to prevent attacks on Gulf territory?

The second peak followed Iranian statements suggesting that Gulf states would remain targets as long as they hosted U.S. military bases. This shifted the debate from evaluating the effectiveness of protection to questioning whether the American presence itself had become a reason for targeting. The study considers this shift a critical turning point in how U.S. bases were perceived within Gulf digital discourse—from a source of security to a potential strategic liability.

The study also notes that the highest level of engagement occurred during a period of escalating U.S. threats toward Iran, followed by a subsequent de-escalation. This generated a growing perception within Gulf discussions that major decisions affecting regional security and infrastructure were being made externally, while Gulf states could ultimately bear the consequences despite having limited influence over those decisions.

Between late March and the announcement of the ceasefire on April 8, the discourse began to evolve in a different direction. Rather than focusing solely on developments in the conflict, discussions increasingly turned toward the future. The central question became: what comes after the U.S. security partnership? Should Gulf states reconsider their security architecture, diversify strategic partnerships, or invest in more independent defense capabilities?

The study categorizes opposition to U.S. security protection into four principal discursive frameworks. The first is a sovereignty-based framework, which views the U.S. military presence not only as a source of protection but also as part of the risk equation. The second is a pragmatic framework that evaluates security guarantees based on performance, asking whether the United States effectively intercepted attacks and protected Gulf infrastructure. The third framework focuses on alternatives, exploring options such as diversified partnerships, a collective Gulf defense system, or models of regional neutrality. The fourth is an identity-based and cultural framework that extends beyond immediate military considerations to question the historical relationship with the West and the costs associated with dependence on it.

The study further demonstrates that Gulf digital discourse frequently expanded beyond the traditional Gulf-U.S. relationship to encompass broader strategic considerations. Israel was referenced in more than 23,800 posts as the factor that, in Gulf digital perceptions, transformed U.S. bases in the region into Iranian targets. Russia and China also featured prominently as strategic variables connected to discussions about diplomacy, intelligence infrastructure, information networks, and shifting balances of power, rather than as direct substitutes for the U.S. security umbrella.

The study concludes that the American-Israeli-Iranian war represented a significant moment in Gulf digital discourse. It tested not only the effectiveness of defense systems but also public perceptions regarding the meaning of protection, its costs, its limitations, and the actors responsible for decisions of war and peace during periods of heightened escalation. The study leaves its central question unresolved: was this simply a temporary digital reaction to an extraordinary conflict, or does it signal a deeper transformation in Gulf attitudes toward the U.S.-led security architecture?

The latest issue of the Jordanian Politics and Society Magazine (JPS), published by the Politics and Society Institute, is dedicated to examining the regional transformations resulting from the war on Iran and their implications for the future of the Middle East and Arab regional relations. The issue explores the strategic questions revived by the conflict, including regional power balances, the future of Gulf-U.S. relations, and the impact of escalation on concepts of security, alliances, sovereignty, and the roles of regional and international actors in the post-war environment.

This study forms part of the Institute’s broader effort to provide in-depth analysis of the political and security transformations unfolding across the region through a combination of political research and digital monitoring methodologies. This approach offers valuable insights into public opinion trends and shifts in political sentiment during periods of major crisis. The issue also reflects the Institute’s ongoing interest in assessing how regional transformations affect Arab states, particularly regarding the future of regional security, the limits of reliance on traditional alliances, and the strategic options available to countries navigating an increasingly fluid and uncertain regional and international landscape.