The Iranian capital Tehran has taken a tougher stance with its Persian Gulf neighbours the Arabs, demanding that they show greater cooperation with the American military or face being branded "hostiles". The warning, issued by Major General Ali Abdollahi, the chief of staff of Iran's armed forces, on Wednesday, is one of the most pointed messages Tehran has issued Wednesday in public to Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, Doha and Manama since the war with Washington began its seventh month.

Abdollahi stated that support or facilitation for the “aggressor” US army would be interpreted as an active part in the US war effort, a statement that leaves little room for the “quiet” basing and overflight agreements which for decades have been the norm in the capitals of the Gulf nations. He said Iran was well aware of the movements of military aircraft at regional governments' bases, pointing to refuelling tankers as proof that host governments could not credibly deny they were aware of the movements. Abdollahi's message was aimed directly at shattering the Gulf states' claim to neutrality, which they had made in public for months that they would not allow their territory to be used to launch strikes against Iran.

The remarks did not just fall out of the sky. Meanwhile, Iranian pressure on the same governments has been ongoing but less noisy, and involves telling through diplomatic channels that oil terminals, power stations, desalination plants and transport lines could be targeted if the capitals of the Gulf nations were not to persuade Washington to end the conflict. Threat made by a senior Iranian official weeks ago, brought up the memory of 2019 attacks on Saudi Aramco facilities in Abqaiq and Khurais, which Iran has both the desire and capability to target hardened energy infrastructure miles away from its borders.

It was a combination of American and Israeli soldiers who carried out a joint strike on Iranian military, government and nuclear facilities that actually began the fighting on February 28. Iran has retaliated with missile and drone strikes against US targets throughout the region, and the string of attacks has been punctuated by a memorandum of understanding reached in June, which briefly slowed the tempo, but was not renewed in July. The Strait of Hormuz, the narrow strait through which one-fifth of the world's oil is transported, is the principal theater of conflict, apart from direct fighting, since then.

The economic effects of that stand-off are now beginning to be reflected in the data. Both oil futures were nearing $89 a barrel this week and $82 for West Texas Intermediate, up over 40 percent since January. The average number of vessels crossing Hormuz prior to the war was approximately 135 a day; only five crossed the weekend of August 15-16 compared to 31 the weekend before and virtually none on the worst days of the war. Global inventories are being reduced at a rate that cannot continue indefinitely, according to the International Energy Agency, while shipping insurers have withdrawn cover for the ships willing to take the risk of shipping them, resulting in a rise in freight and insurance rates for the overall tanker market. The UAE, which already has found workarounds by sending some crude through pipelines and ships from outside the chokepoint, has done likewise, and Iraq's oil ministry has been in separate discussions with Iraq's capital, Washington, and Tehran, in an effort to make sure some of its tankers are not stuck. Baghdad, which has no meaningful alternative to pipelines, has been trying to do the same. Some stocks, particularly those in energy and banking and industrial sectors, are gaining ground in the regional markets since the beginning of any de-escalation, albeit in a different way with modest gains in the Gulf exchanges including those in Saudi Arabia (Tadawul) and Qatar, while underlying uncertainty continues and keeps volatility high.

Washington's stance has become more unpredictable. There are no talks with Iran now, and the Strait of Hormuz is still open and free from mines, President Donald Trump said, even as shipping data indicated otherwise and a ship was hit by a missile this week as it sailed out of the strait with a crew casualty reported. Meanwhile, the Washington Post is reporting that the Pentagon is considering a “once in a generation rewrite” of the U.S. military presence in its Gulf region, its officials believe, to decide whether to restore some bases damaged by months of Iranian rocket attacks or to reduce the force in order to move some closer to Israel.

It is in this review, however, that Abdollahi's warning takes its bite. Washington's message to Riyadh, Doha and Abu Dhabi is a bet on timing: If the United States is genuinely rethinking the extent to which it will continue to underwrite the security of the gulf at this price, then the message for the Gulf leaders is this: Make the case that its time to scale back now, while American political will is visibly waning over an open-ended commitment in the region, or you risk being treated as co-belligerents in a war you did not choose. It is not a hypothetical scenario for monarchies which continue to function almost entirely on the basis of hydrocarbon exports and on the security guarantee that has sustained the foreign investment that has supported decades of foreign policy. Which way the Gulf capitals will lean will likely be decided by the coming weeks of Iran-Oman talks over Hormuz passage and by whatever the Pentagon decides about its bases, all three of which seldom tend to go in the same direction at the same time.