Oman's Diplomatic Role Tested Amid Escalating Gulf Conflict

As tensions rise in the Gulf following US-Israeli strikes, Oman's long-standing role as a neutral mediator faces unprecedented challenges. The conflict, which has expanded beyond military targets to civilian infrastructure, has left Oman vulnerable to attacks, undermining its diplomatic efforts. Despite calls for dialogue, the unity among Gulf nations is fragile, with some viewing Israel as a strategic ally against Iran. Arab states have refrained from retaliation due to economic concerns and the fear of destabilizing Iran further. This article delves into the complexities of Oman's position and the broader implications for regional diplomacy.

By Narendra Chaudhary Mar 3, 2026, 23:36 IST

The Erosion of Neutrality in the Gulf

War often dismantles the diplomatic relationships that have been carefully established, and in the Gulf region, even a stance of neutrality is no longer a safeguard. For many years, Oman has been recognized as a discreet intermediary, earning trust from Washington and respect from Tehran while avoiding taking sides. However, the recent conflict ignited by US-Israeli actions that resulted in the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is putting Muscat’s long-held strategy of balanced diplomacy to the ultimate test. What initially began as a conflict focused on military and strategic targets has now expanded to include ports, civilian infrastructure, and even the territories of nations that aimed to mediate rather than engage in the fighting.

The Decline of the Mediator’s Protection

Initially, Oman maintained its distance from the conflict. While Iran retaliated against Bahrain, Kuwait, the UAE, and Qatar, Muscat remained unscathed. This was due to both strategic and symbolic reasons. Oman does not host significant US military bases used for offensive actions against Iran, and it has maintained a level of trust with Tehran that dates back to their cooperation during the Dhofar rebellion, a relationship that persisted even after the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Just hours before the strikes on February 28, Omani Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Al Busaidi spoke of 'unprecedented progress' in nuclear negotiations between Washington and Tehran, indicating that Oman was not just neutral but actively mediating.

Iran's Conflicting Messages

However, this sense of immunity quickly dissipated. On March 1 and 2, Iranian drones and missiles targeted the Port of Duqm and vessels near Oman’s coastline, indicating that even a mediator could not escape the escalation of conflict. In a notable statement, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi revealed to Al Jazeera that the strikes were 'not the government’s choice,' implying that military factions were operating independently under broader wartime orders rather than specific diplomatic commands. This admission highlighted a growing disconnect between Iran’s diplomatic efforts and the operational independence of its military units. The implication was clear: in what some Iranian strategists refer to as a 'total war' scenario, no area, including that of a mediator, is entirely secure.

A Divided Response from Gulf Nations

The attacks on Oman reveal the fragile unity among Gulf nations. While Muscat continues to advocate for dialogue and de-escalation, other capitals, particularly Bahrain and the UAE, increasingly perceive Israel as a strategic ally against Iran. Iran’s approach seems designed to increase the costs for Gulf states, including threats to vital maritime routes like the Strait of Hormuz, in an effort to compel them to influence Washington’s military strategy. Instead, these strikes may push these nations closer to security partnerships with Western powers.

Reasons Behind Arab States' Restraint

Despite direct assaults on energy facilities, ports, and airports, Arab governments have not retaliated against Iran. Economic Concerns: Gulf economies are highly vulnerable to interruptions in oil supply, shipping routes, and investor confidence. A prolonged conflict could jeopardize long-term economic development plans. Fear of Iranian Instability: Policymakers are apprehensive that completely destabilizing Iran could lead to refugee crises and militia fragmentation throughout the region, potentially resulting in more severe consequences than the current situation. Domestic Perception: No Arab leader wishes to be perceived as fighting alongside Israel against another Muslim-majority country, a narrative that Tehran could exploit both domestically and regionally. Alliance Management: While hosting US military assets, Gulf states have largely adopted a defensive stance, steering clear of direct involvement in offensive actions. Direct Threats: Iranian sources have warned that leadership compounds and civilian areas would be targeted if Arab states formally entered the conflict, a risk that few monarchies are willing to take. Maintaining Diplomatic Channels: Even after being attacked, Oman and Qatar continue to assert that diplomacy must remain an option. Engaging directly in the war would permanently hinder their ability to facilitate negotiations.