The Impact of the U.S.-Israeli-Iranian War on Gulf Digital Discourse Regarding Relations with the United States

This study examines public digital discourse across the six member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman) concerning relations with the United States during the period from 27 February to 30 April 2026.

The study’s timeframe encompasses three principal phases: the initial shock phase marked by the outbreak of the war and the first Iranian strikes targeting the Gulf; the escalation phase characterized by intensified military and political developments; and the post-ceasefire phase following the U.S.–Iranian truce, accompanied by emerging strategic questions and reassessments.

The study employed a digital listening methodology to monitor and analyze 55,600 independent digital discussions1 generated by 29,800 unique users2, producing a total of 531,600 interactions3 and achieving an estimated potential reach of 4.5 billion users.

The findings indicate that 76.6% of the discussions expressed negative attitudes toward U.S. security protection, while 22.5% consisted of neutral or news-oriented content. Less than 1% of the discussions reflected supportive views of U.S. protection.

The results reveal a notable shift within Gulf digital discourse, moving beyond assessments of U.S. performance during the crisis toward broader questioning of the resilience and credibility of the regional security architecture upon which Gulf states have relied for decades.

For access to the full study, including an expanded discussion of the historical foundations of Gulf–U.S. security relations, the evolution of the American security umbrella in the Gulf, the military and political context of the U.S.–Israeli–Iranian war, the study’s theoretical and methodological framework, temporal peaks in digital discourse, discursive frameworks challenging U.S. protection, the evolution of digital sentiment over time, analyses of the roles of Israel, Russia, and China within Gulf discussions, as well as the study’s strategic conclusions and comprehensive Arabic and international bibliography, please visit the following website: https://wp.me/pdSIuF-5R7

The Gulf Digital Sphere

The digital sphere across the Gulf states is shaped by a regulatory and legal environment in which overt political dissent often carries significant social and legal costs. Nevertheless, as in other digital environments, periods of major crisis tend to create broader-albeit cautious and carefully calibrated-spaces for public expression. Digital data indicate that X (formerly Twitter) occupies a particularly central position within the Gulf digital ecosystem. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) rank among the world’s leading countries in social media usage rates, with Saudi Arabia alone accounting for approximately 15.7 million users on the platform,4 making it one of the most intensive users of X globally relative to population size. This has consolidated the platform’s role as the primary Gulf digital arena for sensitive political and strategic debate.

The scholarly significance of this study stems from the fact that Gulf digital discourse surrounding strategic security issues remains an underexplored area within the academic literature, particularly through methodologies capable of capturing its dynamic characteristics. Conventional monitoring and survey instruments were generally not designed to detect the spontaneous, real-time expressions generated within digital spaces during periods of crisis. Digital listening tools, by contrast, offer a methodological avenue for examining this environment and provide an opportunity to analyze discussions taking place within the Gulf digital public sphere beyond formal governmental and institutional channels.

Against this backdrop, the study seeks to address a central question: What forms of discourse emerged within the Gulf digital public sphere when the region faced what may be described as the first genuine test of the American security umbrella in its modern history?

Methodology

This study adopts a mixed-methods approach that combines quantitative and qualitative analysis to examine public digital discourse originating from the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member states concerning relations with the United States and the issue of American security protection in the context of the U.S.–Israeli–Iranian war.

Quantitative data collection and analysis were conducted using the AI Listening Tool, a digital listening and analytics platform designed to monitor and evaluate large-scale online conversations. The dataset was drawn from a diverse range of publicly accessible digital sources, including social media platforms (X, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube), online news blogs, and publicly available websites in both Arabic and English. The sample was not limited to official media outlets or news agencies; rather, it was designed to capture the broader spectrum of public digital discourse across the Gulf region.

The search query and data retrieval framework were carefully constructed to identify digital interactions generated specifically by users residing in the six GCC countries. The dataset was further refined through the exclusion of electronic noise, coordinated inauthentic activity, automated bot networks, and AI-generated content lacking meaningful human participation. As a result, the final corpus was restricted to Gulf-origin digital content directly addressing the issue of American security protection and Gulf–U.S. relations during the period under examination.

The study is theoretically grounded in Framing Theory,5 which serves as the principal analytical framework for interpreting the findings. Within the context of this research, the theory is employed to identify and examine the interpretive frames through which Gulf-based digital users-particularly those expressing negative attitudes toward American protection-understood and discussed the issue. The analysis therefore seeks to determine whether opposition to the American security umbrella was primarily articulated through a sovereignty-based frame linked to national dignity and autonomy, a security-oriented frame focused on protection and deterrence, or a broader identity and civilizational frame reflecting deeper perceptions of regional order, external influence, and collective self-definition.

With regard to data collection and sample construction, the digital listening and analytics tool monitored online discussions during the period from 27 February to 30 April 2026. This timeframe extends from the day preceding the outbreak of the war on 28 February 2026 through several weeks after the announcement of the U.S.–Iranian ceasefire on 8 April 2026.

During this period, the platform identified a total of 55,600 original discussions originating from Gulf-based public digital spaces that addressed either the issue of American security protection for the Gulf or proposed alternatives to that security framework. These figures refer exclusively to independent discussion units and do not include comments, likes, reposts, or other engagement activities, which were classified separately as interactions rather than original discussions.

These discussions were generated by 29,800 unique users located across the six GCC member states: Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and the Sultanate of Oman. The resulting dataset provides a substantial corpus for examining how Gulf digital audiences interpreted, debated, and reassessed the role of the United States as a security guarantor during one of the most consequential regional crises in recent decades.

Results and Analysis

Volume of Digital Discourse

The study identified 55,600 original digital discussions generated by 29,800 unique users, which collectively produced 531,600 interactions across the monitored digital platforms. The scale of this activity carries several important implications.

First, Gulf digital discourse concerning relations with the United States was overwhelmingly framed through the lens of security protection. Rather than occupying a peripheral position within public debate, the question of American protection emerged as a central organizing theme through which users assessed the broader relationship between the Gulf states and the United States. The war and its regional repercussions appear to have transformed the concept of protection from a long-standing strategic assumption into a subject of active public scrutiny and debate.

Second, the exceptionally high level of engagement relative to the number of original discussions suggests that the issue resonated deeply with Gulf audiences. The ratio between original content and subsequent interactions indicates that conversations concerning American protection touched upon a highly sensitive public concern, generating levels of participation that exceeded routine political or international affairs discussions. This pattern reflects the extent to which questions of security, vulnerability, deterrence, and strategic dependence became matters of widespread public interest during the crisis.

Peaks in Gulf Digital Discourse on American Security Protection

The trajectory of Gulf digital discourse concerning American security protection exhibited four distinct peaks between the day preceding the outbreak of the war and 30 April 2026. Each peak corresponded closely to major developments in the conflict, highlighting the extent to which the Gulf digital sphere operated as an event-responsive environment, with shifts in discussion volume closely tracking developments on the ground.

The first major surge occurred on 2–3 March, driven by the initial days of direct Iranian attacks against U.S. military installations and Gulf cities in Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar. During this phase, the dominant question shaping Gulf digital discourse was straightforward yet strategically significant: Why had the American military presence and network of bases failed to prevent Iranian strikes against the Gulf? The discussion therefore centered less on the attacks themselves and more on the perceived effectiveness of the American security umbrella under conditions of direct military confrontation.

A second and even larger peak emerged on 9 March, surpassing the first wave of discussion. This surge followed a public statement by Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who explicitly declared that Gulf states would remain legitimate targets as long as they continued to host American military bases. The significance of this statement lay in its transformation of Iranian targeting from a wartime military response into a broader political position. In effect, it presented Gulf audiences with a new strategic equation: the American military presence was being portrayed as a source of insecurity rather than protection. The discussion was further amplified by reports that Ukraine intended to deploy military experts to the region, introducing an additional layer of complexity and reinforcing perceptions that Gulf territory was becoming increasingly entangled in wider international rivalries. Following this period, discussion volumes declined once again between 12 and 20 March.

The most significant and sustained wave of digital engagement occurred between 16 and 27 March, culminating in the highest peak recorded throughout the entire study period. Yet the shape of this peak is as revealing as its magnitude. Rather than emerging as a sudden digital eruption triggered by a single event, the discussion expanded gradually over several days. Activity began to increase steadily from 16 March onward, maintaining a continuous upward trajectory until reaching its apex on 23 March. This pattern suggests a cumulative process of strategic reassessment among Gulf digital audiences, whereby successive developments reinforced existing concerns and progressively intensified debate regarding the credibility, effectiveness, and long-term implications of American security protection in the Gulf.

The gradual nature of this escalation suggests that the drivers of digital engagement preceded President Donald Trump’s 21 March threat to destroy Iranian power stations within forty-eight hours unless the Strait of Hormuz was reopened. In the days leading up to the statement, Gulf audiences had already been exposed to an intensification of Iranian attacks on Gulf infrastructure and increasingly forceful Iranian declarations regarding the continuation of military operations. As a result, the Gulf digital sphere had entered a state of accumulating anxiety before Trump’s warning injected additional momentum into an already expanding debate.

The deeper significance of this particular episode lay in its association with energy security and the continuity of essential services. During this period, the term “electricity” emerged as one of the most prominent themes across digital discussions. Within the Gulf collective consciousness, threats directed at Iranian power infrastructure were interpreted not merely as military coercion but as a signal of potential reciprocal retaliation against Gulf infrastructure. Such a prospect touched directly upon everyday life and therefore resonated far beyond the realm of conventional strategic discourse. Consequently, concerns regarding deterrence became intertwined with fears surrounding economic stability, public services, and societal resilience.

Trump’s subsequent decision on 26 March to postpone the threatened strikes for ten days in exchange for allowing oil tankers to transit further intensified these discussions. Among many Gulf digital users, the episode reinforced perceptions of inconsistency between presidential rhetoric and developments on the ground. Viewed analytically, the significance of this period extends beyond reactions to specific statements or military actions. The broader pattern suggests that Gulf audiences were responding to a growing perception that critical decisions affecting their security and future were being made without their participation. Gradually, the dominant digital question shifted from “What is happening to us?” to “Who is making decisions on our behalf?” This transition helps explain why this phase generated the highest level of engagement recorded during the entire study period.

A second period of gradual growth emerged between 30 March and 8 April, although its character differed markedly from previous peaks. Rather than reflecting immediate reactions to military escalation, this phase signaled a process of Gulf strategic repositioning. As the prospect of a ceasefire became increasingly likely, digital discussions began to move away from questions centered on ongoing events toward broader considerations of future implications. The focus gradually shifted from “What is happening?” to “What comes next?”

Following the announcement of the ceasefire on 8 April, discussion volumes entered a sustained downward trend that continued through the end of the month. This decline does not necessarily indicate a reduction in public concern. Instead, it may reflect the transition of the crisis from a phase characterized by rapid developments and intense public engagement to a period of strategic observation and reassessment. In such circumstances, digital production often declines as uncertainty gives way to cautious monitoring, with audiences moving from active participation in unfolding events to a more restrained posture of waiting and evaluation.

Sentiment Analysis of Gulf Digital Discourse on American Security Protection

The sentiment analysis reveals a striking pattern in Gulf digital discourse concerning American security protection. Approximately 76.5% of all relevant discussions expressed negative attitudes toward the American security umbrella, making negative sentiment by far the dominant pole of debate throughout the study period. These expressions ranged from skepticism regarding the operational effectiveness of American protection during the conflict, to criticism of security dependence as a factor that may attract threats rather than deter them, and to broader questions concerning the strategic value of hosting American military bases when Gulf infrastructure ultimately bore the costs of escalation.

Within the context of a political environment where public criticism of major security arrangements is often expressed cautiously, the scale of negative sentiment represents a significant development in the willingness of Gulf digital audiences to engage critically with the region’s most important external security partnership. Rather than reflecting a temporary reaction to wartime events alone, the findings suggest a broader process of reassessment regarding long-standing assumptions about security, deterrence, and external protection.

The broader wave of rejection, which accounted for 76.6% of the discourse, can be categorized into four distinct yet interconnected discursive frames, each representing a progressively deeper level of strategic questioning.

The first is a sovereignty frame, which moves beyond criticism of American performance and instead reframes the very presence of U.S. military forces as a source of vulnerability. Within this perspective, American bases located on Gulf territory are viewed as transforming Gulf states into potential targets during periods of regional confrontation. Iranian military strikes, which represented some of the most direct and intense attacks experienced by Gulf states in recent history, reinforced this interpretation by demonstrating how strategic assets associated with American power could simultaneously function as strategic liabilities.

The second may be described as a pragmatic frame, characterized by an attempt to evaluate American protection according to measurable outcomes rather than ideological preferences. Discussions within this frame focused on practical questions: Did the United States successfully intercept missiles directed toward Gulf states? Did it effectively protect critical Gulf infrastructure? From this perspective, the war constituted an unprecedented real-world test of the American security commitment. The conflict therefore shifted the debate from theoretical assumptions about protection to empirical assessments of performance, leading many participants to identify a perceived gap between the implicit promise of security and actual outcomes on the ground.

The third is a frame of alternatives, representing one of the most advanced stages of strategic debate within the digital sphere. Rather than limiting itself to criticism of the existing security arrangement, this discourse seeks to explore future options and alternative security models. Participants operating within this framework increasingly asked, “What comes next?” Discussions frequently referenced the possibility of deeper partnerships with powers such as China, Turkey, and India, the development of a more autonomous Gulf defense architecture, or the adoption of strategic approaches inspired by the Omani model of calibrated neutrality and balanced regional engagement. The significance of this frame lies in its movement beyond dissatisfaction toward the active exploration of alternative strategic futures.

The fourth frame may be described as a Gulf civilizational and identity-based frame, which is also the most difficult to capture through quantitative measurement alone. This perspective extends beyond conventional security calculations and raises broader questions concerning the historical relationship between the Gulf and the West. Its underlying narrative is shaped by a recurring perception: Gulf societies are being required to bear substantial costs resulting from strategic decisions in whose formulation they played little or no role. Consequently, the debate moves beyond questions of military effectiveness and enters a deeper realm involving agency, autonomy, historical experience, and the region’s place within the broader international order.

Turning to other sentiment categories, the findings indicate that approximately 22.5% of Gulf digital content related to American security protection was classified as informational or news-oriented. Users within this category primarily circulated reports, updates, and factual information concerning military operations, political developments, and security incidents without explicitly expressing support or opposition. To some extent, this pattern reflects the culture of caution that characterizes political engagement within the Gulf digital sphere.

At the same time, such apparent neutrality carries analytical significance of its own. The selection and dissemination of particular news stories are not entirely devoid of meaning. The widespread circulation of reports highlighting perceived shortcomings in American security performance, military vulnerabilities, or failures of deterrence constituted an implicit form of evaluation. Although these users did not directly articulate critical judgments, the prominence given to such narratives contributed to a broader informational environment that tended to reinforce negative perceptions of the American security umbrella.

By contrast, positive sentiment toward American protection represented less than one% of the total digital discourse originating from the Gulf states. This extremely limited share exerted little influence on the overall direction of the debate and remained largely marginal throughout the study period. The small size of this category suggests that explicitly supportive voices were exceptionally rare and appeared primarily in the form of reposted official statements, institutional messaging, or content published in English that adopted a more accommodating tone toward the continued American military presence in the Gulf.

Temporal Evolution of Sentiment

A comparison of Gulf digital discourse across the period from 27 February to 30 April 2026 reveals a distinctly phased temporal structure, suggesting that the Gulf digital sphere functioned primarily as a responsive arena shaped by unfolding events rather than as a static reflection of fixed attitudes.

The first methodological observation emerging from the temporal trend is that the red line (negative discourse) and the yellow line (news-oriented discourse) moved in near parallel throughout the study period. The two trajectories neither intersected nor exchanged positions at any point. This pattern indicates that the primary driver of discussion peaks was not a transformation in sentiment from neutrality to rejection, but rather an overall increase in the volume of conversation in response to major developments, while the proportional relationship between sentiment categories remained remarkably stable.

During the first phase, extending from 27 February to 8 March, neutral and informational content remained comparatively closer in volume to negative discourse than at any subsequent stage. This relative proximity reflects the dynamics of the initial shock period, when users were primarily engaged in reporting, sharing, and documenting events rather than interpreting or evaluating them. In the earliest days of the conflict, Gulf users acted more as observers transmitting information than as commentators assigning responsibility or judgment.

As military and political developments intensified throughout March, the gap between the two trajectories widened steadily in favor of negative sentiment. This divergence reached its maximum during the major peak of 23 March, which represented the highest concentration of negative sentiment recorded during the entire study period. What distinguished this phase was not simply the increase in negativity but also the growing sophistication of its content. Negative discourse was no longer confined to criticism of perceived shortcomings in American military performance. Instead, it expanded to encompass broader questions regarding the logic of the security partnership itself, accompanied by increasingly explicit discussions of alternative strategic arrangements and future security options.

Following the ceasefire of 8 April, the volume of negative discourse declined in parallel with the overall reduction in digital activity. Yet its proportional share remained remarkably stable at approximately 76.6% throughout the post-ceasefire period. This represents perhaps the most significant finding of the sentiment analysis. When the acute phase of the crisis came to an end, those expressing critical attitudes toward American protection did not become more supportive. Rather, many participants simply became less active. The decline in discussion therefore reflected reduced engagement rather than a change in underlying perceptions.

From an analytical perspective, this distinction is important. Silence should not necessarily be interpreted as acceptance. Instead, it may indicate a withdrawal from a digital environment that was no longer generating developments requiring immediate reaction. While public expression diminished, the underlying attitudes that had emerged during the conflict appear to have retained their weight and persistence beneath the surface of digital activity.

Word Cloud Analysis: What Dominated Gulf Digital Discourse on American Security Protection?

The word cloud provides an independent visual layer of analysis that complements the findings derived from volume and sentiment analysis. Rather than measuring the scale of discussion or the emotional orientation of participants, it addresses a different question altogether: through which concepts, narratives, and interpretive frames did Gulf digital users understand and discuss American security protection? The prominence of multi-word expressions within the cloud is particularly revealing, as these phrases illuminate underlying structures of thought rather than merely identifying topical interests.

The overall picture emerging from the word cloud is unambiguous. American protection was discussed simultaneously as a security guarantee and as a security arrangement increasingly subjected to scrutiny and reassessment.

The most striking feature of the cloud is the overwhelming prominence of the phrase “American military bases.” This dominance is analytically significant in itself. When Gulf users reflected upon American protection, they did not primarily invoke abstract concepts such as “alliance,” “partnership,” or “security guarantees.” Instead, they consistently referred to the physical reality of military bases located on Gulf territory. Such framing transforms the debate from a discussion of political commitments into a discussion of direct military presence. In doing so, Gulf digital discourse largely displaced abstract strategic assurances in favor of a focus on the tangible infrastructure through which American power is projected in the region.

Within this broader context, several recurring expressions reveal three distinct discursive frames through which American protection was interpreted.

The first may be described as a frame of perceived dual-purpose intentions, encapsulated by the recurring expression “killing two birds with one stone.” This phrase reflects a belief among many participants that American protection of the Gulf is not an objective in itself but rather an instrument serving broader American and Israeli strategic goals. Within this frame, Gulf states are portrayed as bearing the security and infrastructural costs of policies designed primarily to advance external agendas. The prominence of the phrase “under the pretext of defense” reinforces this interpretation by expressing skepticism toward the publicly stated rationale for the American military presence. From this perspective, the language of protection serves as a legitimizing narrative through which broader geopolitical objectives are pursued, while Gulf security becomes a secondary consideration rather than the central purpose of the arrangement.

The second frame centers on questioning the functional effectiveness of the American military presence itself. This perspective is reflected in recurring formulations that distinguish between the existence of military bases and their actual utility. The underlying argument is that bases established to provide security protection failed to perform the function for which they were ostensibly intended. This theme captures what emerged as one of the central paradoxes of Gulf digital discourse during the conflict: American military installations were visibly present across Gulf territory, yet many users perceived security protection as insufficient or absent. Importantly, this discourse does not dispute the existence of American facilities. Instead, it questions their strategic purpose, arguing that these installations primarily support broader American operational objectives rather than serving as instruments dedicated to Gulf defense. Within this interpretation, the war exposed what many participants viewed as the true nature of these facilities, revealing a divergence between their perceived purpose and their actual role.

The third frame concerns the economic cost of protection. This narrative is reflected in recurring references to regional resources, gas pipelines, and oil production. Participants operating within this frame connected perceived shortcomings in American protection with the substantial economic investments Gulf states have made over decades in support of the security partnership. The central argument is not merely that protection was ineffective, but that the costs associated with maintaining the relationship have been exceptionally high. As a result, the discussion increasingly linked questions of security performance with broader concerns regarding economic returns, strategic value, and long-term cost-benefit calculations.

The appearance of references to Senator Lindsey Graham is equally revealing. It suggests that segments of Gulf digital audiences were closely following debates within the United States itself and incorporating American domestic political discussions into their assessment of security protection. This indicates a relatively sophisticated level of political engagement. Rather than viewing the United States as a single, unified actor, these users distinguished between competing political currents and policy preferences within the American system. Consequently, the debate evolved beyond the question of whether the United States could provide protection and toward a more nuanced inquiry: which United States is providing that protection? The significance of this shift lies in its movement from evaluating security guarantees in the abstract to evaluating the internal political dynamics shaping American strategic commitments.

Perhaps the most revealing finding, however, lies in what is absent from the word cloud. Terms traditionally associated with positive security relationships-such as “guarantee,” “ally,” “shield,” or “security partnership”-are notably missing. The lexical universe through which Gulf digital users discussed American protection was overwhelmingly centered on scrutiny, reassessment, accountability, and strategic calculation. This transformation in political vocabulary may constitute the most profound insight generated by the word cloud analysis, as it suggests a shift in the conceptual language through which security relations themselves are understood and debated.

Geographic and Demographic Analysis

Saudi Arabia overwhelmingly dominated Gulf digital discourse concerning American security protection, accounting for 72.1% of all recorded discussions. It was followed by UAE with 10.8%, while Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and Bahrain contributed substantially smaller shares of the overall conversation.

Saudi Arabia’s dominance can be explained through the interaction of two principal factors. The first is demographic weight. The Kingdom accounts for approximately two-thirds of the population of GCC, naturally increasing its contribution to region-wide digital discussions. The second relates to the scale and dynamism of the Saudi digital sphere, which has historically exhibited a greater degree of engagement with strategic, political, and security-related issues than many other Gulf digital environments.

In addition, the issue of American protection carried a particularly significant dimension within the Saudi context. Prior to the outbreak of the war, negotiations concerning a prospective Saudi–American security agreement had occupied a prominent place in regional strategic discussions. As a result, questions regarding the credibility, effectiveness, and future of American security commitments were linked not only to the immediate wartime environment but also to an ongoing policy debate with direct implications for Saudi national security. This contributed to making the issue especially salient within Saudi digital discourse.

The UAE ranked second with 10.8% of total discussions. This position is consistent with the country’s exceptionally high levels of internet penetration and digital engagement. Nevertheless, the volume of Emirati discourse remained considerably lower than that recorded in Saudi Arabia, underscoring the disproportionate role played by the Saudi digital sphere in shaping the overall Gulf conversation.

Qatar and UAE both registered relatively modest levels of participation in discussions specifically related to American security protection. One important methodological consideration is that both states introduced publicly announced restrictions on digital content relating to sensitive security matters during the conflict. This factor provides a direct explanation for part of their reduced visibility within the monitored sample and should be explicitly acknowledged when interpreting the distribution of discourse across Gulf states.

Another contributing factor may be the demographic composition of both countries, where expatriate populations constitute a substantial proportion of residents relative to citizens. Non-citizen residents may have been less inclined to participate actively in discussions concerning security and strategic affairs, particularly given concerns regarding legal accountability and the sensitivities associated with commenting on national security issues. Consequently, levels of digital engagement may not necessarily reflect levels of interest alone but also differing perceptions of the risks associated with public participation.

Oman’s comparatively small share of the discussion is likewise understandable in light of its long-standing security doctrine, which emphasizes strategic neutrality, mediation, and balanced regional engagement. Within such a framework, questions surrounding American security protection may carry less immediate relevance than they do in neighboring states whose security architectures are more directly linked to external military guarantees. As a result, the issue occupied a less prominent position within the Omani digital sphere throughout the period under study.

Distribution of Digital Discourse Across Platforms

Distribution of Digital Discourse Across Platforms

The platform X (formerly Twitter) overwhelmingly dominated Gulf digital discourse concerning American security protection, accounting for 87.4% of all recorded discussions. The remaining 12.6% was distributed across a variety of sources, including online news websites (8.9%), blogs, discussion forums, YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram, each contributing only marginal shares of the overall conversation.

The predominance of X at this scale is not surprising within the Gulf context. Historically, the region has ranked among the world’s most intensive users of the platform relative to population size, and X has firmly established itself as the principal digital arena for political, strategic, and security-related debate. What is particularly noteworthy, however, is what this dominance reveals about the nature of the discussion itself. In the context of American security protection, the overwhelming concentration of discourse on X suggests that the conversation was largely spontaneous, individual-driven, and reactive rather than institutionally managed or editorially curated.

Unlike traditional media outlets or professionally produced digital content, X functions primarily as a platform for personal commentary, immediate reactions, and real-time political engagement. Consequently, the dataset captured through the platform offers valuable insight into public sentiment and grassroots perceptions, bringing researchers closer to the dynamics of popular opinion than would be possible through the analysis of official statements or institutional communications alone.

The comparatively limited presence of Facebook and Instagram is equally revealing. Both platforms occupy a central position in everyday social interaction across the Gulf and command substantial user bases. Yet their role diminishes considerably when discussions move into the realm of contentious political and security issues. This pattern suggests that debates concerning American security protection were not treated as topics of social or lifestyle-oriented content. Rather, they belonged to the category of intensive analytical and political discussion that finds its most conducive environment on X, where rapid exchange of views, strategic commentary, and engagement with current affairs are deeply embedded in platform culture.

The distribution across platforms therefore highlights an important characteristic of Gulf digital discourse during the crisis: the debate was shaped primarily within spaces designed for political conversation and real-time interpretation of events, reinforcing the conclusion that discussions surrounding American protection were perceived as matters of strategic significance rather than routine public affairs.

Linguistic Distribution of the Discourse

The linguistic composition of Gulf digital discourse concerning American security protection was overwhelmingly dominated by Arabic, which accounted for 87.8% of all recorded discussions, while English represented the remaining 12.2%. Although the English-language share appears relatively modest, it warrants closer analytical attention because it reflects the participation of two distinct groups of contributors.

The first consists of expatriate residents living in Gulf states who articulated their concerns and perceptions in their primary language while experiencing the consequences of the crisis directly within the region. The second includes Gulf citizens who chose to communicate in English either because of its widespread use as a second language across the Gulf or because they sought to engage audiences beyond the region and participate in broader international conversations. As a result, English-language discourse served not only as a medium of communication but also as a channel linking local Gulf concerns to wider global audiences.

Discussion and Conclusions

This study provides empirical evidence that the U.S.–Israeli–Iranian war generated an exceptional moment in the evolution of Gulf digital discourse concerning American security protection during wartime. The findings demonstrate that nearly three-quarters of all Gulf-origin digital discussions expressed negative attitudes toward the American security umbrella, despite operating within a digital environment historically characterized by comparatively high levels of political caution in discussions of security and strategic affairs.

These findings contribute to a broader understanding of how Gulf digital publics respond to major security crises and what such responses may reveal about evolving collective perceptions. The study identified a clear divergence between official discourse, which remains anchored in the logic of alliances and defense agreements, and the prevailing sentiment within the digital public sphere, where 76.6% of discussions expressed varying degrees of rejection or skepticism toward American protection, even when articulated through relatively cautious language.

The results further indicate that negative attitudes developed gradually through the accumulation of field-level indicators related to security performance rather than as immediate reactions to isolated events. This finding suggests that public discourse was shaped more by the cumulative trajectory of developments than by any single incident. The four major peaks identified during the study period illustrate the extent to which Gulf digital discourse responds to symbolic turning points that reshape public interpretations of crises and redefine their broader meaning.

The significant presence of English-language content also reflects an increasing awareness among some users of the importance of the international digital sphere as a channel for influencing external audiences and policy communities. At the same time, it highlights the contribution of expatriate communities residing in Gulf states to discussions surrounding regional security and political developments.

The findings concerning Israel, Russia, and China introduce a broader strategic dimension that extends beyond the bilateral relationship between the Gulf states and the United States. Israel appeared in more than 23,800 posts, with discussions frequently portraying the American–Israeli relationship as one of the factors that exposed American military facilities in the Gulf to Iranian retaliation. This narrative strengthened perceptions linking Gulf security to the wider dynamics of regional conflict and strategic competition.

Taken together, the findings contribute to the growing academic debate concerning potential transformations in Gulf collective perceptions of the regional security order. While the results document an extraordinary digital moment produced by highly unusual crisis conditions, they do not permit definitive conclusions regarding the long-term durability of these attitudes. The evidence cannot determine whether the observed patterns represent a temporary response to an exceptional event or the early stages of a deeper and more enduring shift in Gulf perceptions of a security architecture that has constituted a central pillar of regional politics for decades.

The study concludes by emphasizing that the 55,600 Gulf digital discussions analyzed here constitute an important collective record of how digital public opinion responds to a major security crisis. As such, they provide valuable insight into contemporary Gulf political perceptions while opening important avenues for future research aimed at tracking whether these attitudes persist, evolve, or recede during the post-crisis period.

Read this article in the interactive edition