Since the signing of the U.S.–Iran Memorandum of Understanding, a far more consequential debate has been unfolding across the Gulf than the agreement itself. The central question is no longer whether the war has ended or who emerged victorious. Instead, it concerns whether the conflict has fundamentally altered one of the most deeply embedded assumptions in Gulf politics over the past four decades: the credibility of the American security umbrella.

 

This is precisely why the study conducted by digital research specialist Rand Azm, published in the fifth issue of The Jordanian Politics and Society Journal (JPS), deserves close attention. Rather than advancing another political argument, the study listens carefully to what Gulf citizens themselves were saying at the height of the U.S.–Israeli war against Iran, and how they reassessed their security relationship with the United States.

 

The study stands out for its use of Digital Listening, a methodology designed to monitor spontaneous online conversations rather than responses to structured opinion polls. Covering the period between 27 February and 30 April 2026, it analyzed 55,600 original digital discussions generated by 29,800 Gulf-based users, producing more than 531,600 interactions and an estimated potential reach exceeding 4.5 billion impressions. The resulting dataset provides one of the most comprehensive snapshots available of Gulf public sentiment during a major strategic crisis.

 

The findings are striking. Seventy-six point six percent of all discussions expressed skepticism or negative attitudes toward American security protection, while 22.5 percent consisted of neutral or news-oriented content. Explicitly supportive views accounted for less than one percent of the overall conversation.

 

Yet the numbers tell only part of the story. More revealing is the nature of the debate itself. Gulf audiences were not primarily evaluating America's military performance during the war; they were questioning the security architecture on which the region has relied for decades. A fundamental question gradually emerged: Can the security model that has underpinned Gulf stability for generations still deliver security today?

 

Another equally important question gained prominence throughout the digital conversation: Have American military bases remained a source of deterrence, or have they become, under certain circumstances, a source of vulnerability? According to the study, the phrase "American military bases" dominated Gulf digital discourse, while terms traditionally associated with strategic partnerships—such as "ally," "security guarantees," and "partnership"—were notably absent. Political change often reveals itself first through language, and the evolving vocabulary suggests that Gulf discourse has begun moving from accepting the American umbrella as a strategic certainty to questioning its very foundations.

 

The geographical distribution of the discussions is equally revealing. Saudi Arabia accounted for 72.1 percent of all recorded Gulf conversations, followed by the United Arab Emirates with 10.8 percent. The study also found that 87.4 percent of all discussions took place on X, while 87.8 percent were conducted in Arabic.

 

Perhaps the most significant finding is that the conversation has moved beyond criticism toward the exploration of alternatives. Participants increasingly discussed diversifying security partnerships, strengthening indigenous Gulf defense capabilities, expanding strategic relations with countries such as China, India, and Turkey, and drawing lessons from Oman's long-standing model of regional balance and strategic neutrality.

 

This does not necessarily suggest that the Gulf is preparing to abandon its alliance with the United States, nor does it imply that Washington has lost its position as the region's principal security partner. What it does suggest is that strategic reassessment is no longer confined to policymakers or security elites. It has become part of a much broader public conversation, shaped in no small measure by the economic, social, and psychological consequences of the war and the Iranian strikes that reached Gulf territory.

 

It is true that the military and institutional architecture built over decades cannot simply be replaced overnight, and no other global power currently possesses the capacity to assume America's role in the region in the foreseeable future. There is, however, a profound difference between relying on one strategic partner as the only conceivable option and treating that partner as one among several possible pillars of a broader and more diversified security strategy.

 

Perhaps this is the conflict's most enduring legacy. The U.S.–Iran war did more than reshape regional military calculations. For the first time in decades, it prompted Gulf societies to reconsider the meaning of security itself—and to reassess the political, economic, and strategic costs of relying on any external security umbrella, regardless of how powerful it may appear.