Since February 28, when the United States and Israel struck Iran with the coordinated operations “Epic Fury” and “Roaring Lion,” none of the anticipated scenarios have unfolded as expected. Tehran responded with unprecedented fury, targeting for the first time all six countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). In the midst of this geopolitical earthquake, it is Ukraine — more than Europe and NATO — that has emerged as a strategic military partner. A new global order is taking shape, built on unexpected coalitions and increasingly visible institutional fragilities.

The Nightmare Scenario Comes True

February 28, 2026 will change the history books. In the hours following the American-Israeli strikes against Iranian military and nuclear infrastructure — which according to Western intelligence sources eliminated Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and dozens of senior officials — Iran unleashed a response of unprecedented scale: swarms of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and Shahed-136 drones directed simultaneously at Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

“For the first time in history, all GCC states were targeted by the same actor. Their long-feared nightmare scenario has come true,” declared Sinem Cengiz, researcher at Qatar University and analyst at the Gulf International Forum. A judgment shared by GCC Secretary General Jassim Mohammed Al-Budaiwi, who has declared that the Iranian attacks are not simply another escalation, but “a change, a turning point in the relationship between Iran and the GCC.“

In the analysis of Euro-Gulf Information Centre (EGIC) President Mitchell Belfer, this dynamic is rooted in a precise but distorted Iranian strategic logic: Tehran strikes Gulf countries not because they are belligerents, but as a tool of indirect pressure on the United States, in the vague hope that GCC capitals will be compelled to act as intermediaries with Washington. A logic that, according to Belfer, reveals how Iran views these countries not as sovereign subjects, but as pressure variables in its game with the West.

The Ukrainian Diplomacy That Surprised the World

In a context of European paralysis and NATO fence-sitting, the most concrete and politically significant response came from Kyiv. During the week of March 26–30, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky completed a diplomatic tour of the Gulf that produced defense agreements with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates — the first of their kind between Ukraine and GCC countries. Since the start of the conflict in Iran, Kyiv had already deployed more than 200 anti-drone specialists to the region.

“We are talking about agreements that will last for decades,” Zelensky declared at the conclusion of the negotiations, underscoring how the air defense technologies developed by Ukraine under the rain of Russian Shahed drones — the same Iranian-made drones now being used against the Gulf — represent a body of operational know-how that is immediately transferable. The agreement with Saudi Arabia, signed in Jeddah with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, lays according to Kyiv “the foundations for future contracts, technological cooperation, and investments, while simultaneously strengthening Ukraine’s international role as a security partner.“

“It is very interesting that while the European Union, the UK and even NATO have been dragging their feet and have not shown a huge amount of support for the GCC countries in practical terms — only symbolically — Ukraine has, with a weekend of showcase diplomacy, emerged as a key military partner for the GCC,” observed Mitchell Belfer, highlighting the paradox of a country at war that manages to project strategic capabilities where established Western institutions have stopped at declarations. The assessment is all the more pointed in light of the fact that Gulf missile defenses — Patriot and THAAD — were rapidly depleting their interceptor stockpiles in the first weeks of the conflict, while Rome was weighing the deployment of its SAMP-T system.

A New Harmony of Interests Against Tehran

What is taking shape is not a simple bilateral partnership, but a structural realignment of regional balances. “With Qatar and Saudi Arabia concluding important strategic relations with Ukraine, a new harmony of interests is emerging whereby Iran and its many international brokers will have to contend with the combined economic power and military capabilities of a diverse but very capable coalition,” declared Belfer, highlighting how this unprecedented axis — Gulf plus Kyiv — possesses a strategic coherence that extends beyond the contingency of the current conflict.

According to EGIC’s representative, the speed with which GCC countries — historically reluctant to openly take sides in international disputes — chose to work with Ukraine signals a profound shift in their threat perception: the Tehran regime is no longer seen as an actor with whom a managed rivalry can be maintained, but as an existential threat. A paradigm shift that the EGIC president links directly to Iran’s gamble of indiscriminately striking all Gulf countries in retaliation for Israeli and American operations.

The Gulf’s response has remained — at least for now — on the defensive and diplomatic plane, avoiding direct retaliation on Iranian territory. Analysts estimate that the probability of a direct counterattack by Saudi Arabia and the UAE remains below 30%, while the likelihood of a partial ceasefire brokered by Riyadh in the near term is growing. But the signing of agreements with Kyiv — combined with mounting pressure on Iranian energy infrastructure — significantly alters Tehran’s strategic calculus.

What Order Will Follow the Conflict?

Every war, sooner or later, ends. But the question pressing most urgently today is not when — it is how, and above all, what comes after. As the President of the Euro-Gulf Information Centre observes, “a lot will depend on how aggressors are treated and what the terms of peace are.” Belfer exempts no one from responsibility: both Israel and the United States will have to answer for the “Pandora’s box” opened by their operations, which have already caused hundreds of civilian casualties in Iran. Yet he also reminds us that Iran has been “locked in a war against the United States and Israel for decades” — a war fought by proxy, through militias, cyberattacks, and oil pressure — while the GCC countries were not parties to that conflict. Striking them, in this light, may prove to be Tehran’s gravest strategic miscalculation.

The 2026 conflict has already produced effects that transcend the region: the intermittent closure of the Strait of Hormuz has disrupted one-fifth of global LNG supplies, world energy markets remain under pressure, and the West’s credibility as a security guarantor is being put to the test. What is certain is that the Gulf’s security architecture will not return to what it was before. A new alliance system is emerging — more pragmatic, less dependent on Atlantic structures, more open to asymmetric partnerships such as that with Kyiv. The question is no longer whether the world order is changing. It is how quickly, and at what cost.