On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury against Iran — the largest American military operation in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Within just 100 hours, Washington spent $3.7 billion on military operations. As strikes surpassed 2,000 sorties, the Middle East once again finds itself at the center of a war it did not choose — yet pays the full price for.
This report traces the recurring patterns in American-Israeli policy toward the region, analyzing how economic, military, and geopolitical interests intertwine to form a map of control stretching from Baghdad to Tripoli to Tehran — and how the Gulf states and the broader Arab world have become part of this equation, willingly or not.
The Recurring Pattern: From Iraq 2003 to Iran 2026
To understand what is happening in March 2026, one must look at what came before. The American record in the Middle East since 2001 reveals a pattern that repeats with striking precision: identify an Arab or Muslim regime as a “threat,” escalate media and diplomatic rhetoric, then intervene militarily under justifications that shift over time — from weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, to “protecting civilians” in Libya, to “preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons” in 2026.
In Iraq in 2003, the justification was weapons of mass destruction that never existed. In Libya in 2011, a UN no-fly zone to protect civilians transformed into a full-scale war that toppled the regime. In Syria, chemical weapons allegations were used to justify repeated strikes. In every case, the outcome was the same: the collapse of the targeted state, continuing chaos, and American-Israeli economic and military gains.
President Trump himself declared on February 13, 2026 that regime change in Iran would be “the best thing that could happen” — and just two weeks later, the bombing began. Official justifications ranged from an “imminent threat” to “destroying missile capabilities” to “preventing nuclear weapons” to “regime change.” The multiplicity and contradictions of these justifications is itself a familiar pattern for anyone who followed the lead-up to the Iraq War.
The Price the Middle East Pays: The UAE and Dubai as Case Study
While American and Israeli warplanes bomb Iran, it is the Middle East — not Washington or Tel Aviv — that bears the heaviest cost. On February 28, 2026, Iran launched 165 ballistic missiles, two cruise missiles, and 541 drones in retaliation for the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Most were intercepted, but 21 drones struck civilian targets in the UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar — countries that did not participate in the war but host American military bases.
In Dubai, a massive fire erupted at Jebel Ali port — the ninth-largest container port in the world and an economic artery accounting for 36% of Dubai’s GDP. DP World suspended operations. Dubai International Airport sustained damage with losses estimated at $1 million per minute. The Burj Al Arab was hit by interceptor missile debris. More than 70% of flights to the UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain were cancelled.
These countries did not declare war on Iran. They did not participate in Operation Epic Fury. They even refused to allow the United States to launch attacks from their bases. Yet they paid the price — because hosting an American military presence made them proxy targets.
The deeper irony: UAE non-oil trade exceeded $1 trillion in 2025 for the first time. An economy built on openness, trade, and tourism is taking a hit because of a war it did not choose — and this is precisely what Gulf states warned about when they tried to dissuade Washington from escalation.
The Abraham Accords: Economic Normalization as a Prelude to Security Entanglement
To understand how Gulf states ended up in this position, one must analyze the Abraham Accords signed in 2020 between Israel, the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco. These agreements were not merely diplomatic normalization — they were comprehensive economic-security deals: recognition of Israel in exchange for protection and profits.
The economic results were tangible: bilateral trade between Israel and the UAE exceeded $3 billion annually by 2026. A $36 billion natural gas deal linking Israel, Egypt, and American partners was concluded. Multi-billion-dollar deals in healthcare, financial services, and renewable energy followed. Deep intelligence sharing and joint military exercises were established.
But the deeper equation was clear from the start: Israel gains recognition and access to Middle East markets, and the ruling Gulf families receive protection and profits. This is what a MERIP analysis described as a “quid pro quo between protection and profits” — a description that takes on new dimensions in March 2026 when that “protection” became the very reason these countries came under Iranian attack.
In January 2026, the Abraham Accords expanded to include Kazakhstan — the first Central Asian country to join the framework — with a partnership focused on cybersecurity and water management. This expansion reveals that the project is not merely regional but seeks to build a network of economic-security alliances extending from the Arabian Gulf to Central Asia — with Israel at its center.
Arms Deals: $16 Billion in a Single Month
On January 30, 2026 — exactly one month before the war began — the United States approved arms deals worth nearly $16 billion in total: $6.67 billion for Israel (including 30 Apache attack helicopters worth $3.8 billion and 3,250 light tactical vehicles worth $1.98 billion) and $9 billion for Saudi Arabia (covering 730 Patriot missiles and related equipment).
The timing warrants scrutiny: massive arms deals signed while the American administration was “considering” striking Iran. Saudi Arabia receives defensive missiles it will need in precisely the scenario Washington will trigger weeks later. Israel receives attack helicopters and military vehicles ahead of a major military operation.
Then in March 2026 — after the war began — the State Department approved an “emergency” sale of 1,000-pound bomb casings worth $151.8 million to Israel, bypassing Congressional approval with a waiver issued by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The word “emergency” here effectively means: circumventing democratic oversight to arm an ally in an ongoing war.
The question that presents itself: who benefits economically from this war? American defense companies — Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing — are experiencing their highest demand in years. The Pentagon is preparing a $50 billion emergency spending request to replenish munitions used. Operations cost $1 billion per day — money flowing directly into the American military-industrial complex.
Egypt: Costly Neutrality and Economic Dependency
Within this regional equation, Egypt’s position occupies a unique analytical space. Egypt — the most populous Arab country and North Africa’s most prominent military power — stands on the sidelines while the map of the Middle East is being redrawn. President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi warned that Egypt is in an economic “state of near-emergency” due to the war’s impact on prices and the broader economy.
But Egypt is unable to take a genuinely independent position. Cairo depends on IMF programs and American aid totaling approximately $1.3 billion annually — and any stance that displeases Washington could jeopardize this assistance. This economic dependency transforms neutrality from a “strategic choice” into “economic compulsion.”
An analysis by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies revealed that Egypt is sending “conflicting messages” about its position on the war — reflecting Cairo’s attempt to balance American pressure against domestic public opinion that opposes the war. The report demanded that Egypt “more explicitly highlight shared interests with Washington” — a demand that exposes the nature of the relationship: not a partnership between equals, but a dependency in which the stronger party dictates the terms of loyalty.
The $36 billion natural gas deal between Israel, Egypt, and American partners exemplifies this model: tying Egypt to the Israeli energy economy makes any independent political stance economically costly. This is precisely what analysts mean when they describe “normalization as a tool of integration” — integrating Arab states into an economic system where the cost of leaving exceeds the cost of staying.
Gulf States: Between Iran’s Hammer and America’s Anvil
The position of GCC countries in March 2026 encapsulates the broader predicament facing the region. These countries did not want this confrontation. Before the war, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman made intensive diplomatic efforts to persuade Washington to avoid military action. Saudi Arabia had reached a 2023 détente with Iran under Chinese sponsorship — an agreement that has now evaporated.
Even after the war began, Gulf states refused to allow the United States to launch attacks from bases on their territory. But this did not protect them. Iran targeted American assets in these countries regardless of their political stance. The result: countries that attempted neutrality found themselves in the line of fire — not because they declared war, but because the American military presence on their soil made them targets.
Saudi Arabia specifically underwent a notable shift. After direct Iranian attacks on its territory, Riyadh abandoned its declared neutrality and now defines Iran as an “existential threat,” reserving the right to respond militarily. This shift — from neutrality to an anti-Iran stance — is precisely what Washington and Tel Aviv were seeking: pushing Gulf states into full alignment with the American-Israeli camp.
As the Carnegie Endowment described it: “The Gulf monarchies are caught between Iran’s desperation and America’s recklessness.” A description that precisely summarizes the impossible position these countries were placed in — and perhaps this was the objective from the beginning.
Who Benefits: A Profit-and-Loss Accounting
The Beneficiaries
The American Military-Industrial Complex: Operations cost exceeds $1 billion per day. The Pentagon is preparing a $50 billion emergency spending request. Defense companies are experiencing their highest demand levels in years. Arms deals worth $16 billion were signed one month before the war. These figures mean that war — regardless of its political outcomes — is a profitable enterprise for the American defense sector.
Israel: Pursuing an existential strategic objective: eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat and dismantling the entire “resistance axis” network. Al Jazeera reports indicated that Israel’s true goal behind continued bombing has become clear: regime change. If successful — which is not guaranteed — Israel will have removed its most powerful regional adversary militarily and in terms of nuclear capabilities, while the United States and Gulf states bear the largest share of the financial and human costs.
The Geopolitical Impact: Every American war in the Middle East has removed an adversary of Israel — Iraq in 2003 (Saddam Hussein was the largest financial supporter of the Palestinian Intifada), Libya in 2011 (Gaddafi was among Israel’s fiercest critics), and Syria (weakening Iran’s closest ally). Iran is the last link in this chain — and the largest.
The Losers
Arab and Iranian peoples: $3.2 trillion was wiped from global markets in 96 hours. Gulf countries were attacked in a war they did not declare. Economies built on stability and openness face disruptions that could last years. Millions of Iranian civilians live under bombardment.
Sovereign independence: Gulf states that attempted neutrality found themselves compelled to take positions they did not choose. Egypt is trapped in economic dependency that limits its political options. Every expansion of the Abraham Accords means deeper integration into a security system led by two parties — America and Israel — that does not necessarily serve the interests of the states that join it.
The regional economy: Brent crude surged 13% to above $82. European gas prices doubled. Hormuz shipping traffic declined by over 80%. Maritime insurance premiums hit six-year highs. All of these costs are borne by the region and the world — not the party that started the war.
History Doesn’t Repeat — But It Rhymes
In 2003, the world was told Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. They were never found. In 2011, the world was told that intervention in Libya was to protect civilians. It turned into regime change and chaos that continues to this day. In 2026, the world was told the war on Iran was to prevent nuclear weapons. Then the justification changed to regime change.
The results in every case were similar: the United States spends and then recoups — through arms sales, reconstruction contracts, and geopolitical influence. Israel eliminates a regional adversary. And Arab nations pay the price: refugees, economic devastation, loss of sovereignty, and chronic security instability.
An Al Jazeera investigation noted that the United States has bombed at least 10 countries since September 2001 in operations ranging from drone strikes to full-scale invasions. In every case, populations were promised democracy and stability — and received chaos. Afghanistan returned to the Taliban. Iraq still suffers from sectarian division and endemic corruption. Libya is governed by warring militias.
The question every Arab and Middle Eastern citizen is asking in March 2026: will Iran be different? Or is it another link in a chain of interventions that serve Washington and Tel Aviv’s interests while leaving the region to deal with the consequences?
The Grand Strategy: Why Is All of This Happening Now?
Several factors converged to make 2026 the moment of escalation. Iran was at its weakest: years of sanctions, destabilizing internal protests, severe damage during the 12-day war with Israel in June 2025, and the diminished position of its regional allies during the Gaza war. As the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) described it: “Given Iran’s weakened state, the United States and Israel calculated that they had greater opportunity to advance their objectives through military means than by diplomatic means.”
Simultaneously, the alliance infrastructure was ready: the Abraham Accords provided the normalization framework. Arms deals provided the materiel. Military bases in the Gulf provided logistics. Egypt’s economic dependency provided forced neutrality. Every piece of this puzzle was placed over years — and the war is the logical conclusion.
The expansion of the Abraham Accords to include Kazakhstan shows that the project extends beyond Iran. The goal is building a “new Middle East” — as American policymakers have termed it for decades — in which Israel is the dominant regional power, Gulf states are dependent economic-security partners, Egypt is an obedient guardian of the Suez Canal, and Iran is either collapsed or subjugated.
The Other Perspective: What Do Intervention Advocates Say?
Fairness demands presenting the arguments made by military intervention proponents. A broad contingent of Western policymakers and analysts argues that Iran represented a genuine threat: an advanced nuclear program approaching weapons-grade threshold, a network of armed militias in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, and Syria, sophisticated ballistic missile capabilities, and continuous support for movements that Washington and its allies designate as “terrorist.”
From this perspective, the intervention was preemptive and necessary — not aggressive. Gulf states themselves considered Iran an existential threat and implicitly sought its weakening, even if they did not wish to bear the consequences of direct war. Advocates also point out that Iran’s missiles striking Gulf states prove it represented a real danger to the region.
But these arguments do not answer the fundamental question: why does the same pattern repeat — the same justifications, the same tools, the same beneficiaries — with every new “threat” in the Middle East? And why does every war end by strengthening American-Israeli influence while weakening the region?
The Economic and Investment Perspective — March 2026
Beyond geopolitical analysis, the numbers tell their own story. The American defense industry is the single greatest beneficiary of every escalation cycle in the Middle East. Every Patriot missile Saudi Arabia buys for $9 billion returns revenue to Raytheon. Every Apache helicopter Israel purchases with American aid money returns profits to Boeing.
According to the Center for American Progress, Operation Epic Fury costs exceeded $5 billion by March 2 — and the campaign was just getting started. Estimates for a two-month war range between $40 and $95 billion. These figures are not “losses” in the traditional sense — they are revenue for the American defense and security sector.
Meanwhile, Middle Eastern losses are real and immediate: Jebel Ali port suspended, Dubai International Airport hemorrhaging financially, Gulf stock markets losing billions, oil exports constrained by Hormuz disruptions, and tourism — a pillar of the UAE economy — absorbing a blow that could take years to recover from.
What Awaits the Region?
An Atlantic Council analysis concluded that “the Gulf that emerges from the Iran war will be very different.” This assessment carries dual implications: first, regional relationships will be entirely rewritten, and second, the concept of “neutrality” that Gulf states tried to maintain may become impossible within the new order.
Variables that will determine the region’s trajectory in the coming months include: the outcome of military operations in Iran and the extent to which declared “regime change” is achieved; China and Russia’s response to the redrawing of the region’s power map; Gulf states’ ability to maintain their economic diversification trajectory amid instability; and the willingness of Arab populations to accept the “new Middle East” being designed for them.
What is clear is that the Middle East stands at a defining moment. The question is not whether the region will change — but who holds the right to determine the shape of that change: its own peoples and nations, or external powers pursuing their strategic and economic interests at the region’s expense.
This article presents an analysis of historical patterns and documented facts from multiple sources. Readers are invited to draw their own conclusions.
