VITA VISSUTA

In the early dawn hours across the Gulf last weekend, the skies over Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Kuwait and Doha were pierced by an unprecedented barrage of missiles and drones launched by Iran. Residents rushed for cover as air-defence sirens wailed. Major airports were swarmed with passengers seeking shelter. In the United Arab Emirates alone, authorities reported at least 165 ballistic missiles and more than 500 drones detected, most of them intercepted but some leaving debris-related deaths and injuries, and material damage in both here in Abu Dhabi and Dubai. 

The scale and audacity of the assault — encompassing Gulf monarchies long seen as insulated from the region’s wars — marked a stark new chapter in a conflict that until recently remained geographically distant for many in the Arab world. And while official rhetoric in Tehran framed the strikes as retaliation for a U.S.–Israeli offensive that killed Iran’s supreme leader and key commanders, policymakers and analysts in Washington and Riyadh see a deeper strategic motive at play: increasing the political pressure on President Donald Trump at home. 

The Iranian leadership appears intent on amplifying the costs of the war for the United States, not only militarily but politically. Each missile that arcs over desert metropolises and each drone that streaks toward U.S. forces in the region isn’t just an act of retaliation — it is a signal, a strategic syllable in a wider message to Washington: if American policymakers and their constituents begin to feel the war at home, the calculus in the next election cycle could shift dramatically.

This is not the first time commentators have seized on the trope of a “crazy American president” dragging the world toward conflict. But Tehran’s moves suggest a willingness to outflank that narrative — portraying itself not as reluctant combatant, but as the more unhinged actor prepared to expand the war footprint, showing off they are much more crazy than Trump himself. Against the backdrop of Trump’s already contentious political standing, this narrative can feed into domestic dissent, particularly within his own Republican base, where anti-war sentiment has grown as military spending and overseas commitments balloon. 

For the moment, Gulf states have rejected Tehran’s overtures of negotiation. Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, long cautious about entanglement in wider Middle East wars, have condemned the strikes and signaled willingness to reassess regional security strategies. Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) diplomats hinted at options for collective self-defence against future Iranian attacks, underscoring the broader alarm shared among monarchies that once prided themselves on stability. 

Yet the political pressure in the United States is arguably the lever Iran seeks most. Trump’s administration had already staked significant political capital on confronting Tehran. Weeks earlier, he had marshalled U.S. forces and worked closely with Israeli partners in a campaign described by Pentagon officials as designed to degrade Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities. But in doing so, Trump also drew criticism from segments of both parties at home, with some lawmakers questioning the lack of clear strategic objectives and the sidelining of domestic priorities. 

Now, with American citizens residing in the Gulf being advised to “depart immediately,” and with congressional debates underway over war powers and presidential authority, the strain is visible on Capitol Hill. Some Republicans have rallied behind Trump’s approach, arguing that confronting Tehran is necessary to uphold U.S. credibility. Others, including factions within the MAGA movement, have voiced unease about open-ended foreign commitments at a time when economic concerns and border issues dominate domestic discourse. 

In Tehran’s strategic calculus, this domestic unease is a feature, not a bug. By expanding the battlefield beyond the confines of the Iranian hinterland into the heart of the Gulf — and by drawing American personnel and assets into the line of fire — Iran is increasing the political cost of continuation for the U.S. president. The hope, from Tehran’s perspective, may be that domestic backlash will compel Trump to halt or significantly scale back the war effort.

Such a dynamic underscores a sobering reality of contemporary geopolitics: wars are no longer fought solely with tanks and missiles, but also with narratives and political pressure points. In an era of instant communication and fragmented media, the battlefield extends into parliaments, social feeds and election cycles.

Whether Iran’s gamble will succeed — whether American voters, weary of prolonged foreign entanglements, will push for de-escalation — remains an open and perilous question. But for now, the skies over the Gulf echo with the reverberations of a conflict that has become, in every sense, both external and profoundly internal.

I’m home in Abu Dhabi, still feeling reasonably safe right now, regardless the alarm warnings that woke me up at 3am.