As the confrontation between Iran on one side and the United States and Israel on the other continues to escalate, Tehran has widened the battlefield by striking Gulf states that have not been directly involved in the war. Since the conflict began, roughly 3,000 missiles and drones have reportedly been launched toward countries across the region, targeting civilian infrastructure and critical facilities. These figures reveal more than a military escalation; they reflect a strategic calculation aimed at spreading the costs of war across multiple regional actors.
The underlying logic assumes that confronting nearby states is easier and less costly than directly confronting distant adversaries. Yet history suggests the opposite: attacks on neighboring countries rarely weaken them, but instead strengthen their internal cohesion and expose the limitations of the aggressor’s strategy. In asymmetric warfare, such tactics are often intended to distribute damage widely in the hope that economic and political pressure will compel regional states to intervene diplomatically or push for an end to hostilities. In practice, however, this approach tends to generate long-term political losses.
International law clearly protects civilians and civilian infrastructure, and attacking countries that are not party to the conflict undermines the legal and political foundations governing relations between states. When missiles and drones begin targeting cities and infrastructure in neighboring countries, the consequences extend far beyond the battlefield and reshape regional relationships.
Give the gift of hope
We practice what we preach:
accurate, fearless journalism. But we can't do it alone.
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
Join us.
Support The Media Line. Save democracy.
From this perspective, Saudi Arabia’s response becomes clearer. Since the crisis began, the kingdom has adopted a strategy rooted in restraint and political prudence, emphasizing stability and adherence to international law while seeking to prevent further escalation in an already volatile region. Such restraint should not be mistaken for weakness. Rather, it reflects a strategic understanding of geopolitics: wars are temporary events in political history, but geography is permanent. External powers that intervene in regional conflicts may eventually withdraw or shift priorities, yet neighboring states remain bound to one another by geography and shared interests.
For this reason, targeting neighbors does little to alter the balance of power but instead creates long-term political damage. Relations between neighboring states ultimately depend on a minimum level of mutual trust—even in times of rivalry. Once that trust is shattered, rebuilding diplomatic channels becomes far more difficult. In this sense, the policy can be described as a form of diplomatic suicide.
Whatever the outcome of the current war, it will eventually end with either a new balance of power or a negotiated settlement. At that moment, global powers will return to their own strategic calculations, while the countries of the region will remain responsible for rebuilding a viable regional order. Yet attacks against neighbors during moments of crisis leave deep scars in political memory and complicate future reconciliation. Moreover, such tactics often produce the opposite of their intended effect. Instead of dividing regional states or forcing them to apply political pressure, attacks frequently strengthen coordination among them and accelerate cooperation in defense and security.
Ultimately, a nation’s strength is not measured by the number of missiles it launches or by its ability to widen the circle of conflict, but by its capacity to manage crises rationally and protect its long-term interests. States confident in their strategic vision remain focused on stability, development, and the welfare of their people. Those that lose their strategic compass, by contrast, often drift toward short-sighted military adventures in which attacking neighbors becomes a substitute for effective political strategy. What the current war reveals—regardless of its final outcome—is the danger of entering conflict without balanced political calculations and the disastrous consequences of turning geographic neighbors into enemies whose relationships will endure long after the war itself has ended.
Youssef al Dini (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)