Sulaiman Al-Hattlan, the former editor in chief of Forbes Arabia, hosts the Sky News Arabia television program “The Arab Talks.”
In the aftermath of President Donald Trump’s announcement of a two-week ceasefire with Iran, the pressing concern in the Gulf is not how this war ends, but if it might end too soon.
For many outside the region, Trump’s declaration might signal closure. For those of us living within range of Iranian missiles and drones, such a development would mark the beginning of a more dangerous phase: the day after.
A premature American declaration of victory risks leaving Gulf nations exposed to a resentful and emboldened neighbor — one that has already demonstrated a willingness to escalate far beyond conventional limits. Trump’s unpredictability deepens that anxiety. His record suggests he is a leader who treats war less as a sustained strategic commitment than as a moment for political theater — a stage on which to declare triumph whether or not the underlying threats have been resolved.
The concerns multiply. What if the war ends without a verifiable neutralization of Iran’s uranium stockpile? What if the Strait of Hormuz remains vulnerable to coercion? What if Iran’s missile and drone capabilities — already among the largest in the region — remain largely intact? What if the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps continues to dictate Iran’s regional posture unchecked? These questions aren’t abstractions. As I write this, I hear the distant echo of a ballistic missile interception over Dubai.
The Gulf states did not seek this conflict. Before it began, they actively worked to avoid entanglement. Yet they have now absorbed thousands of projectiles — missiles and drones targeting civilian and economic infrastructure, particularly in the United Arab Emirates. Though having exercised remarkable restraint, the Gulf cannot afford an inconclusive outcome.
At a minimum, any durable peace deal must address the core drivers of instability: Iran’s nuclear program, its expanding missile and drone arsenal and its repeated use of maritime choke points as instruments of pressure. As long as enriched uranium remains a tool of strategic leverage in Tehran’s hands, the logic of preemption will persist. Israel may strike again. Iran may retaliate again, including by hitting its neighbors. And Gulf cities — tied to global markets — will remain exposed to a government in Tehran that has shown it is willing to lash out at its neighbors and choke global trade to further its agenda. Leaving the Strait of Hormuz at Iran’s mercy amplifies the regime’s power.
Yet the military dimension obscures something deeper. What Washington has failed to grasp is that this is not merely a geopolitical rivalry — it is a clash of models.
Across the Gulf, particularly in the UAE, governments have invested heavily in building open, globally integrated economies. The UAE’s non-oil sector now accounts for more than 70 percent of its gross domestic product. Cities like Dubai have become global hubs for trade, finance, tourism and technology, while the region is channeling significant resources into artificial intelligence, advanced industries and renewable energy.
Iran’s current system represents something different. It is defined by ideological rigidity, repression, centralized control and the outward projection of instability and violence. Internally, it suppresses dissent and limits economic openness. Regionally, it has supported proxy networks across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen — fueling conflicts that have devastated entire societies.
The contrast is stark. In the Gulf, young people are encouraged to build companies and innovate. In Iran’s sphere of influence, young men are too often drawn into militias and conflicts that offer neither prosperity nor stability. It goes without saying that human rights under Iran’s fundamentalist theocracy are severely limited.
The stakes of this war are not limited to deterrence. They concern the region’s future direction — whether it moves toward openness and growth or remains trapped in cycles of confrontation. For that reason, the day after cannot be an afterthought. A temporary ceasefire that satisfies Washington’s political timetable while leaving underlying issues unresolved would sow instability across the region and, in due time, the world.
I do not support Trump’s suggestion of wiping a civilization off the face of the earth. What I do support, however, is the decisive neutralization of the risks and threats posed by Iran — in the interest of the Iranian people and their neighbors, and in service of broader global security and stability. A temporary ceasefire is dangerous. It may provide the IRGC with a critical window to regroup, reorganize its leadership and restore elements of its operational capacity.
The Middle East needs an outcome that resolves the sources of instability — and opens the possibility for a different future, in which the region’s human and economic potential, in Iran and the Arab world alike, can be directed toward growth instead of conflict.
For those of us living in the region, the pertinent question is not whether this war ends. It is whether it truly ends.
The post The Iran ceasefire pushes the Gulf toward what it fears most appeared first on Washington Post.
