IISS on the Gulf War The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS, Manama Branch) published a report on the Gulf War. Abstracts: - American defense is as necessary as it is incompatible with sovereignty. When Iran began to attack the GCC countries, Riyadh, Abu Dhabi and Doha effectively transferred to Washington the right to decide which targets to intercept, in what order and by what means. - In this conflict, Iran managed to define and actually approve new rules of the game. This goes beyond an "asymmetrical threat" and becomes a working mechanism of economic blackmail that the Gulf is now required to take into account in every major infrastructure and investment decision. - The royal houses in the Gulf demonstrated internal resilience: despite the blows, there was no serious panic in the states, failures in public services or attempts to destabilize internally. But the government's stability and the military's contentment remain different things, and the gap between them in the Gulf turned out to be greater than is commonly thought. - Economic diversification does not improve security in the region. Financial, tourism and technology centers do not protect ports, pipelines and maritime approaches, and now all "visions" in the Gulf must begin with the military division, not end there. - The Gulf War legitimized the militarization of economic projects. Investments in backup ports, distribution of critical infrastructure, establishing and increasing the combat effectiveness of air defense and anti-missile defense, and developing alternate bypass logistics routes become a condition for the feasibility of projects. - The monarchies have different interests regarding Iran, so that the "United Gulf Position" will "gather" more and more on a specific issue, and will not exist as a permanent one. Links.