US–Iran Tensions 2026: Iran’s Domestic Crisis, Protests, Currency Collapse, and Political Fallout
The Gulf region is in a precarious situation as a result of ongoing Iranian non-compliance and increased American pressure. Given the extensive security, economic, and political fallout that a fight between the United States and Iran would entail, the prospect of a military battle has caused anxiety among the nations in the region.
The Gulf region’s security and stability have once again been threatened. Iran’s December 2025 protests, which were sparked by the country’s currency’s dramatic devaluation, might have a big impact on both local politics and the Gulf’s larger geopolitical environment. Iranian authorities have claimed that outside parties, especially Israel and the United States, supported and encouraged the protests in an effort to sow discord within the nation.
US–Iran Tensions 2026: America’s “Maximum Pressure” Strategy and Military Escalation
The Iranian government’s harsh response to the demonstrators has drawn criticism from the US. The United States used its “maximum pressure” policy by threatening a military strike on Iran during a period of internal unrest. Tensions in the area have increased as a result of the United States’ enhanced military and geopolitical posture toward Iran. These changes are taking place at a time when a number of other regional realignments are happening more quickly. The possibility of using force against Iran has caused the Arab nations in the region to become increasingly concerned.
US–Iran Tensions 2026: Iran’s Missile Program, the Core of Its Strategic Deterrence
President Donald Trump of the United States has increased pressure on Iran to reach a nuclear deal that would lead to the total dismantling of its nuclear program. The USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier group has been redeployed from the Indo-Pacific to the Persian Gulf as part of this coercive tactic. Washington set four main topics for discussion after Iran agreed to engage in talks: Tehran’s backing for regional proxy organizations, the government’s handling of the demonstrators, Iran’s nuclear program, and the range and advancement of its ballistic missile capabilities.
Although Iran has consented to hold talks on the nuclear issue, it has made it apparent that it is not interested in expanding the scope of the talks to cover other topics, including its ballistic missile program.
Iran’s missile weapons are its main and most reliable deterrent tool in the absence of a modern, technologically sophisticated air force. One notable instance of this deterrent stance was during the June 2025 12-Day War with Israel. Tehran believes that any restrictions placed on its missile program by outside parties would seriously impair its ability to defend itself and could expose the nation to military threats from the outside world. The USS Gerald R. Ford, a second carrier strike group, is also being sent to West Asia, which strengthens the US military’s increased presence in the area in the midst of ongoing negotiations with Iran.
Despite the increasing pressure from the United States, Iran has remained stubborn. It has been maintained that talks can only take place with mutual respect and on an equal basis. “If Americans start a new war against Iran this time, it will be a comprehensive regional war,” Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has warned. Similarly, Iran’s foreign minister has said that any strike on Iran would be catastrophic for the region and reaffirmed that, in the event of a conflict, Iran would target American assets in the Gulf.
Risk of Regional Spillover: Houthis, Kataeb Hezbollah, and Proxy Fronts
In the event of an American attack, the Houthis in Yemen and Kataeb Hezbollah in Iraq have also stated their support for Iran. In the event of a conflict, the Houthis have declared that they would relaunch their attacks on Red Sea maritime lines. These claims draw attention to the possibility that a military conflict between the US and Iran may swiftly expand to other parts of West Asia.
Additionally, these remarks coincide with the European Union designating the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization. Iran retaliated by designating the EU nations’ military as terrorist organizations. The dispute may also involve European nations.
US–Iran Tensions 2026: Israel’s Hardline Position and Pressure on Washington
Given that Iran is experiencing a serious internal crisis and escalating economic issues due to currency devaluation, Israel has increased pressure on the Trump administration to take a stronger stance on Iran because it sees now as the right time. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has emphasized that the full dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is a prerequisite for any future deal between Washington and Tehran. Israel feels that the US shouldn’t agree to a settlement that only includes short-term limitations that only impede or postpone uranium enrichment without removing the program’s essential capabilities.
Although Tehran has frequently expressed its willingness to have a respectful discourse with the United States, its belligerent posture underscores its categorical rejection of any negotiations conducted under pressure. “Diplomacy is incompatible with pressure, threats, and intimidation,” according to Iran. By taking a firm stand, Iran hopes to counter Washington’s coercive tactics and force the Trump administration to soften its maximalist demands so that they are more reasonable and acceptable in Iran’s eyes.
On February 6, 2026, the United States and Iran had their first round of negotiations in Muscat with Omani mediation. The discussions have been praised by both parties. Trump said that both parties had “very good talks” in Oman, while Iran has called the negotiations a “good start.” Iran has declared that the talks will exclusively cover the nuclear problem.
The second round of negotiations took place on February 17, 2026, in Geneva. While the Iranian Foreign Minister said that the US and Iran had agreed on “guiding principles” for the nuclear agreement, the Omani Foreign Minister said that “good progress” had been made at the second meeting.
Trump has reaffirmed his goal of ending Iran’s nuclear program completely. Majid Takht Ravanchi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, has said that if the United States were to ease its sanctions, Iran would think about surrendering its nuclear program. Despite these declared stances, there is a great deal of uncertainty over the likelihood of fruitful negotiations.
Both parties continue to carefully hide their strategic intents, even if they have made their overarching goals clear. The likelihood of an American military attack against Iran could increase if negotiations fail. On the other hand, a fruitful negotiation could result in a win-win solution that takes into account the main issues raised by both parties.
Concern regarding the US military posture toward Iran has been voiced by the Gulf Arab nations. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates have declared that they will not permit the use of their military installations against Iran. Talks between the two sides have been facilitated by Qatar and Oman.
GCC Concerns: Strait of Hormuz, Oil Security, and Economic Vulnerability
In the case of war, they would be susceptible and justifiable targets of an Iranian strike if the situation in the region worsened. Iran’s involvement with the GCC nations has greatly improved in a number of areas, including the economy, security, and political connections, since the Saudi-Iranian rapprochement in March 2023. Given that Israel and Hamas recently reached a ceasefire, the GCC governments fear that an American-Israeli attack on Iran at this time would further destabilize the area.
They are also worried about how the conflict may affect their economy since, in the event of an American strike on Iran, the Strait of Hormuz would probably be closed, which would affect the flow of oil through this vital chokepoint. Furthermore, the region will see unanticipated and unprecedented repercussions from any US move to compel regime change in Tehran.
The Emerging “Islamic NATO”: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey
US–Iran Tensions 2026: Impact on Regional Security
Given that Turkey has indicated interest in joining the Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement (SMDA), which Saudi Arabia and Pakistan signed in September 2025, a significant shift in the regional security landscape in West Asia is currently taking place. “Any aggression against either country shall be considered an aggression against both,” according to the pact. Both nations gain from the deal: Pakistan wants financial advantages to boost its faltering economy, while Saudi Arabia anticipates military assistance from Pakistan.
Pakistan and Turkey have a solid defense and political alliance. One of Pakistan’s main military suppliers is Turkey. Additionally, they cite Islamic unity as the cornerstone of their bilateral partnership. Saudi Arabia and Turkey see each other as rivals for regional hegemony, although their friendship has become stronger in recent years. As a result, these three nations’ interests in pursuing military cooperation are increasingly aligning.
In West Asia, which is governed by three Islamic nations with a Sunni majority, this has been referred to as an “Islamic NATO.” Due to its emphasis on collective security, this has the potential to drastically change the regional balance of power.
Saudi Arabia vs UAE: Strategic Divergence in West Asia and the Horn of Africa
The Saudi Arabia-Pakistan-Turkey negotiations are occurring during a period of strained relations between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. In West Asia and the Horn of Africa, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are becoming more and more different. In January 2026, Israel made a significant choice by recognizing Somaliland. The United Arab Emirates has a number of significant investment projects in Somaliland and supports the region.
As a result, Israel and the UAE have similar interests in Somaliland. However, Saudi Arabia has opposed Israel’s recognition of Somaliland. In the meantime, Somalia has revoked every contract it had with the United Arab Emirates.
In a similar vein, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which have initiated a military assault against the Sudanese government, are backed by the UAE. Saudi Arabia has opposed support for Sudanese breakaway or separatist groups as well as any involvement in the internal affairs of the country.
Saudi Arabia has demanded that Israel leave Syria right away. Despite the persistent regional tensions, Israel’s relationship with the United Arab Emirates has been strengthening. In Riyadh, the growing Israel-UAE connection is seen as a strategic threat to Saudi Arabia’s hegemony in the region. The gap between it and the UAE has only gotten bigger. Saudi Arabia has tightened its stance on Israel’s recognition, a topic the two nations discussed before the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel.
When Saudi Arabia attacked a shipment connected to the United Arab Emirates at the Port of Mukalla, relations between the two countries hit a low point. It is believed that firearms meant for the Southern Transitional Council (STC) were included in the shipment. Abu Dhabi has backed the STC, a separatist movement in the south, while Riyadh still supports Yemen’s internationally recognized government. The UAE eventually left the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen as a result of the Saudi attack.
Saudi Arabia also has serious concerns that the growing UAE presence in southern Yemen, Israel’s increasing involvement in the Horn of Africa, and the recognition of Somaliland could drastically change the maritime geopolitics of the Gulf of Aden and the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb, reshaping the balance of power in the region.
West Asia’s Shifting Balance of Power: Realignment or Fragmentation?
Saudi Arabia’s long-term interests in West Asia and the Horn of Africa are currently under threat from the Israel-UAE convergence of interests. The UAE’s growing involvement in West Asia and the Horn of Africa is increasingly seen by Saudi Arabia as an assertive action that could exacerbate regional instability. Abu Dhabi has undertaken a significantly more active foreign policy, while Riyadh has typically taken a cautious stance meant to maintain the current balance of power.
There is a lot of tension between the two nations as a result of their different perspectives on the region. Interestingly, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are becoming more in agreement with the changing circumstances in Yemen, Syria, and Sudan, which points to a little realignment of regional affinities.
The Gulf’s quickly changing political and security landscape is probably going to have a big impact on regional geopolitics and overall strategic stability. The result of the current US-Iran negotiations is still up in the air in this regard. Since any military conflict between Washington and Tehran would have a direct impact on their security, economic interests, and regional stability, the Arab Gulf governments are closely monitoring these events.
US–Iran Tensions 2026: War or Compromise? Scenarios for the Future of US–Iran Relations
The strategic environment has also been made more complex by the stark disagreements between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, two significant regional powers, regarding important regional theaters, such as those in West Asia and the Horn of Africa. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan have been discussing the possibility of creating an “Islamic NATO,” while Israel and the United Arab Emirates have strengthened their relationship in the post-Abraham Accords era.
The developing US-Iran entanglement now has additional layers of uncertainty due to these overlapping and occasionally conflicting alignments. Any strategic blunder by the main players could have dire repercussions for future regional security and stability in such a precarious situation.