ANALYSIS: Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait targeted by Iranian missiles

Introduction: three Gulf allies under fire from the same regime

A night that turned regional risk theory into lived reality

For years, regional security analysts warned that the Gulf monarchies would remain exposed to any escalation between Tehran and the American-Israeli coalition, despite their official status as non-belligerents. In early July 2026, this theory became documented reality: Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait came under Iranian missile fire, according to converging reports from Reuters, India Today, and the pan-Arab outlet Asharq Al-Awsat.

This sequence of direct attacks on the territory of countries officially uninvolved in the open military conflict between Israel, the United States, and Iran constitutes a regional escalation of a gravity rarely reached since this crisis began. It confirms that the Islamic Republic is willing to target infrastructure on the soil of neighboring Arab countries to express its anger toward its main adversaries, with apparently no regard for the sovereignty of these third-party states.

An escalation directly following the July 11-12 wave of American strikes

According to Reuters, this campaign of Iranian retaliation is directly tied to the massive wave of American strikes carried out on the night of July 11 to 12, 2026, against roughly 140 targets linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) across Iranian territory. This American response, itself triggered by the IRGC's attack on three commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz on July 7, opened a new cycle of retaliation in which the Gulf monarchies became collateral victims.

This precise chronology, documented by several independent sources, illustrates the classic mechanics of regional escalation: every American or Israeli strike against Iran triggers an Iranian response that targets, unable to directly reach American or Israeli territory with the same effectiveness, the regional allies geographically closest to Tehran.

That countries like Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait are paying the price for a conflict they did not start reveals the deeply unjust nature of this escalation, where geographic innocents become the collateral hostages of a revolutionary regime's nuclear and military ambitions.

The strikes on Qatar, a provocation of particular gravity

An American base targeted on Qatari soil

According to Euronews and India Today, the Iranian strikes on Qatar targeted installations linked to the American military presence on Qatari territory, a strategic choice that confirms Tehran's determination to strike Washington's interests directly wherever they are accessible in the region, including on the territory of a country that is officially a diplomatic partner of Iran on several regional files.

This attack on installations linked to American forces stationed in Qatar represents a particularly risky escalation, since any strike against American military personnel on the soil of a Gulf country could trigger an even more massive American response than the one already seen on the night of July 11 to 12, with the risk of an even broader regional conflagration.

Doha, a mediation diplomacy put to a severe test

Qatar has long cultivated a role as a preferred regional mediator, notably in negotiations between Israel and various Palestinian factions, as well as on several diplomatic files involving Iran itself. This direct Iranian strike on its territory severely tests this posture of neutral mediator, forcing Doha to reconsider its position as a regional balancing act in the face of an Iranian neighbor increasingly willing to violate the sovereignty of its most useful diplomatic partners.

This questioning of Qatar's posture illustrates a broader phenomenon observed across the Gulf since this crisis began: monarchies that had invested in a balancing diplomacy between Washington and Tehran now find themselves forced to choose a side more clearly, under the direct pressure of Iranian missiles landing on their own soil.

Striking Qatar directly, a country that has long served as a valuable diplomatic bridge between Iran and the West, is not just an Iranian strategic mistake, it is an admission that Tehran no longer knows how to distinguish its useful partners from its declared enemies.

Bahrain, target of a regime that never forgets old grudges

A strike that revives old historical tensions

According to Asharq Al-Awsat, Bahrain was also directly targeted by Iranian missile fire in early July 2026, an attack that fits into a history of old tensions between Manama and Tehran, the latter having historically claimed a form of influence over the small island kingdom's Shia-majority population, a recurring diplomatic friction point between the two countries for decades.

This historical dimension gives the current strike a particular symbolic weight: beyond the immediate retaliatory logic tied to the American strikes of July 11-12, it reactivates sectarian and geopolitical fault lines that Tehran has always known how to exploit to its advantage in its long-running regional strategy.

A strategic American naval base directly exposed

Bahrain also hosts the headquarters of the US Fifth Fleet, a naval installation of major strategic importance for the American military presence in the Persian Gulf. Any Iranian strike targeting, even indirectly, the surroundings of this base represents an escalation of potentially greater gravity than that seen in the other Gulf countries hit by this wave of retaliation.

This geographic proximity between the documented strikes and this critical naval installation illustrates the calculated risk Tehran is taking by multiplying these regional provocations, a gamble whose outcome will largely depend on Washington's ability to distinguish limited collateral damage from a genuine existential threat to its forces stationed in the region.

Targeting the surroundings of a base hosting the US Fifth Fleet is no tactical accident, it is a calculated message from Tehran, and history teaches us that this kind of calculated message often ends up triggering exactly the escalation it claimed to be avoiding.

Kuwait, a third collateral victim of the same retaliatory logic

A border country directly exposed to the conflict's geography

Kuwait, the third Gulf country hit according to India Today and Reuters, shares a direct border with Iraq, a territory where Iranian influence remains significant through several Shia militias aligned with Tehran. This geographic proximity structurally exposes the small emirate to any regional escalation involving Iran, far beyond its own diplomatic wish to stay out of the open conflict between the region's major powers.

This Kuwaiti geographic vulnerability, documented for decades by regional security analysts, is confirmed once again through this new wave of strikes, a reminder that Kuwait's small territorial size gives it little strategic room to maneuver against an Iranian neighbor determined to extend its retaliation across the entire Gulf region.

A collective memory still marked by the 1990 Iraqi invasion

For the Kuwaiti population, this renewed exposure to a regional conflict inevitably revives the collective memory of the Iraqi invasion of 1990, a national trauma that continues to shape the small emirate's security policy decades later. This historical memory partly explains the particular nervousness observed in Kuwait City in the face of any new regional threat, even when it does not come directly from a classic ground invasion.

This Kuwaiti historical sensitivity to regional threats, however legitimate, must not overshadow the fact that responsibility for this new crisis rests entirely on Tehran's strategic choices, not on any provocation by a Kuwait that has never sought direct confrontation with its Iranian neighbor.

Kuwait has carried the memory of an invasion it did not provoke since 1990, and now in 2026 it once again finds itself a geographic hostage of a conflict that is not its own, this historical repetition is an injustice the West should never trivialize.

The diplomatic response of the Gulf Cooperation Council

A collective condemnation rare in its firmness

Facing this triple strike against three of its members, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which brings together Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Oman, issued a collective condemnation rare in its firm tone, according to several regional press reports relayed by PBS. This facade of unity among countries that nonetheless maintain sometimes divergent diplomatic relations with Tehran illustrates how seriously this new escalation is perceived across the region's monarchies.

This collective condemnation, though symbolically important, was not accompanied by concrete announcements of immediate economic or diplomatic retaliatory measures against Iran, reflecting the persistent caution of these monarchies toward a neighbor they must continue to live alongside geographically, regardless of the provocations suffered.

A solidarity that masks divergent national approaches

Behind this facade of regional solidarity displayed by the GCC, the national approaches of the three directly affected countries remain noticeably different: Qatar continues to favor cautious mediation diplomacy, Bahrain adopts a posture more explicitly aligned with Washington and Riyadh, while Kuwait seeks above all to preserve its historic neutrality toward its powerful regional neighbors.

This divergence in national approaches, despite the collectively displayed facade of unity, illustrates the structural limits of regional coordination among Gulf monarchies that share common security interests without necessarily sharing the same diplomatic priorities toward Tehran.

A collective condemnation with no concrete measures looks more like a communications exercise than a genuine deterrence strategy, and Tehran has probably already understood that better than anyone else in this region.

The American position on attacks against its Gulf allies

Washington between displayed solidarity and operational caution

The American administration, led by President Donald Trump, expressed solidarity with Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait after these Iranian strikes, while avoiding, according to PBS, any statement that would automatically commit the United States to additional military escalation directly tied to these specific regional attacks, distinct from the main campaign already conducted against IRGC infrastructure on Iranian territory.

This American operational caution, despite the diplomatic solidarity on display, reflects the real difficulty of simultaneously managing several fronts of potential escalation, between the main campaign against Iranian nuclear and military capabilities and the need to protect regional allies scattered across several distinct Persian Gulf territories.

A credibility test for American security guarantees

This sequence constitutes, in the view of several regional security analysts, a direct test of the credibility of the security guarantees Washington traditionally offers its Gulf partners in exchange for hosting American military bases on their respective territories. If these monarchies conclude that their support for the American military presence exposes them further to Iranian retaliation without adequate protection in return, the long-standing strategic relationship between Washington and these regional partners could be durably weakened.

On this specific file, Trump's firmness toward Iran remains a necessary evil to contain the aggressiveness of the mullahs' regime, but the absence of immediate reinforced protection for these three allied countries deserves factual criticism regarding the coherence of American regional strategy at this specific stage of the crisis.

I can support American firmness toward Iran while acknowledging that these three allied countries deserved more visible and more immediate protection after paying, on their own soil, the collateral price of a war they did not choose to fight.

The regional economic consequences of this new wave of strikes

Gulf financial markets directly affected

Regional Gulf stock exchanges, notably those of Doha, Manama, and Kuwait City, recorded significant volatility immediately after news of these Iranian strikes broke, according to several market analyses relayed by regional business press. This market nervousness illustrates the direct and immediate economic impact this type of military escalation produces on Gulf economies that largely depend on the perceived stability of their regional environment to attract foreign investment.

This regional financial volatility, although generally less dramatic than the movements observed in global oil markets tied to the Strait of Hormuz closure, confirms that the entire Gulf economic ecosystem remains structurally vulnerable to any new escalation directly involving its members' territory.

Tourism and regional aviation, sectors immediately exposed

The tourism and aviation sectors, particularly developed in Qatar and Bahrain, which have invested massively in their airport and hotel infrastructure over the past two decades, are among the first hit by this new wave of regional uncertainty, with several international airlines having had to temporarily adjust their routes or flight frequencies to these destinations directly exposed to Iranian strikes.

This specific sectoral exposure illustrates the concrete economic cost these Gulf monarchies are directly paying for their geographic proximity to the epicenter of this regional crisis, a cost that adds to the material and human damage directly caused by the strikes themselves.

Qatar and Bahrain spent decades building their image as safe, modern destinations, and it only took a single wave of Iranian missiles for that patiently built reputation to come under question in international tourism and investment markets.

The human dimension behind the numbers and military maps

Civilian populations facing a threat they had not anticipated

Behind the geopolitical analyses and military maps documenting this escalation, there are civilian populations in Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait suddenly facing a threat of missile strikes that most of them had, for the most part, never directly anticipated on their own national territory, unlike Israeli or Iranian populations already accustomed for months to this type of direct threat.

This sudden break with a sense of relative security, cultivated for decades by these monarchies through their economic prosperity and internal political stability, constitutes a collective psychological shock whose exact scale remains difficult to measure precisely, but whose human reality should never be reduced to a simple abstract geopolitical statistic.

Regional resilience put to the test

Despite this shock, authorities in the three affected countries quickly implemented civil protection measures and public communications aimed at reassuring their respective populations, according to several regional press reports. This rapid institutional response illustrates a form of administrative resilience that, without minimizing the gravity of the threat suffered, also demonstrates these states' ability to manage a sudden security crisis with minimal prior logistical preparation.

This institutional resilience, however real, must not obscure the broader question of the Iranian regime's moral responsibility for deliberately choosing to target civilian populations that at no point actively participated in the military conflict between Tehran and the American-Israeli coalition.

What military maps never show are the Qatari, Bahraini, and Kuwaiti families who had to, overnight, learn to live with the fear of a missile strike, a human reality Tehran seems to consider mere acceptable collateral damage.

The precedent of the 2025 Iranian strikes on the Al Udeid base

An escalation not entirely without precedent for the region

This wave of attacks on the Gulf in July 2026 is not entirely unprecedented: Iran had already carried out, in 2025, a strike on the American Al Udeid base in Qatar, an episode that then triggered a major diplomatic shockwave in the region, before the situation temporarily stabilized through complex international mediation involving several regional and Western powers.

This historical 2025 precedent confirms that the Gulf's vulnerability to Iranian retaliation is not a new phenomenon born solely of the current crisis, but fits into a strategic continuity in which Tehran has already demonstrated, in the past, its willingness to strike American installations on the territory of Gulf countries whenever it deems it necessary to send a retaliatory message to Washington.

A lesson insufficiently learned by regional diplomacy

The fact that this same dynamic is repeating itself, with an even broader regional scale in 2026, simultaneously hitting three countries rather than just one, suggests that the lessons of the 2025 precedent were not sufficiently incorporated into collective regional deterrence strategy, whether on the American side, on the side of the Gulf monarchies themselves, or on the side of an international community that failed to establish a preventive mechanism robust enough to prevent this type of escalation from repeating.

This historical repetition, documented twice within less than two years, should push all regional and Western actors to fundamentally rethink their approach to deterrence in the face of an Iranian regime that has clearly demonstrated its willingness to resort to this type of regional strike whenever its immediate strategic interests demand it.

Seeing the same escalation repeat barely a year after the Al Udeid precedent confirms that the West still has not found the formula to durably deter Tehran from striking its Gulf allies, a collective failure that deserves to be acknowledged honestly.

The comparison with Ukraine's vulnerability to Russia

Two different forms of exposure to a hostile neighbor

There is an instructive, though imperfect, comparison between the geographic vulnerability of Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait to Iran, and that of Ukraine to Vladimir Putin's Russia. In both cases, smaller or less militarily powerful states find themselves exposed to the regional ambitions of an authoritarian neighbor determined to expand its influence through force rather than classic diplomatic negotiation.

This comparison has obvious limits, however: unlike Ukraine, which has suffered a direct territorial invasion and a total war of aggression since 2022, the Gulf countries hit by these July 2026 strikes are not facing an attempted territorial annexation, but rather one-off retaliatory strikes tied to a broader regional conflict primarily involving Israel and the United States.

The same lesson about the need for Western support

Despite these important differences, the strategic lesson remains similar in both cases: small nations geographically exposed to aggressive authoritarian neighbors need clear, constant, and credible Western support to effectively deter any future escalation, whether through robust security guarantees in the Gulf or continued military and financial support for Kyiv against Russian aggression.

This shared lesson, applicable to both Eastern Europe and the Middle East, confirms that Western collective security cannot be built on a selective basis, protecting some allies while neglecting other regional partners facing equally real threats, even if of a different nature.

Zelensky and Gulf leaders share, each in their own way, the same bitter lesson: without constant and credible Western support, diplomatic goodwill alone never suffices to deter an authoritarian neighbor determined to impose its force.

The authoritarian axes and the implicit coordination of threats

China, Russia, and North Korea watch this escalation with interest

This new wave of Iranian strikes on the Gulf is not unfolding in an isolated geopolitical vacuum: it fits into a broader context in which China, Russia, and North Korea watch with obvious strategic interest any escalation that diverts Western attention and military resources away from their own respective regional priorities, whether Taiwan for Beijing, Ukraine for Moscow, or the Korean peninsula for Pyongyang.

This dynamic of indirect benefit, without requiring any explicit formal coordination between these different authoritarian regimes, illustrates the systemic nature of the threat posed by this axis hostile to the Western international order, where every regional provocation by one member indirectly benefits all the others, by fragmenting the attention and response capacity of Western democracies.

A lesson for overall Western strategic coherence

Facing this reality, the Western response to the Gulf crisis can no longer be thought of in isolation, but must be integrated into a global containment strategy targeting this entire authoritarian axis, recognizing that firmness toward Iran in the Middle East and continued support for Ukraine against Russia are, in reality, part of the same fundamental strategic logic of defending the rules-based international order.

This global strategic coherence, if genuinely implemented by Western decision-makers in the months ahead, would constitute a far more effective structural response than simply reacting, case by case, to each new regional crisis triggered by one or another of these hostile regimes.

Beijing, Moscow, and Pyongyang are silently applauding every Iranian missile fired at the Gulf, because every hour the West spends managing this crisis is one less hour devoted to containing their own respective ambitions.

Scenarios of escalation or de-escalation in the coming weeks

A regional contagion scenario still possible

Several regional security analysts interviewed by the specialized press envision a broader regional contagion scenario should Iran choose to continue or intensify its strikes against other Gulf countries, notably Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates, which have not so far been directly hit by this specific wave of retaliation, but which remain potential targets given their strategic alignment with Washington on this file.

This contagion scenario, should it materialize, would turn an already serious crisis into a much broader regional conflict potentially involving all the Gulf monarchies, with economic and security consequences that would far exceed the already concerning scope of the documented strikes against Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait.

A de-escalation scenario driven by collective diplomatic pressure

Conversely, a scenario of gradual de-escalation is also considered by some more optimistic analysts, driven by collective diplomatic pressure exerted by the Gulf Cooperation Council, by potential mediation from third-party powers such as Turkey or certain European countries, and by Tehran's recognition, even tacit, that multiplying regional escalation fronts ultimately harms its own long-term strategic interests.

This persistent uncertainty between two radically different scenarios confirms, once again, the fundamentally volatile nature of this regional crisis, where every decision made in Tehran in the coming days could tip the entire Gulf toward one or the other of these two radically opposed paths.

Living suspended between total regional contagion and fragile de-escalation, dependent on the goodwill of a regime that has already demonstrated its unpredictability, is precisely the situation the West should have anticipated and prevented well before missiles started falling on the Gulf.

Structural lessons for Gulf collective security

A regional missile defense system still insufficient

This wave of strikes also reveals the persistent limits of the missile defense systems deployed by Gulf countries, despite considerable investment made over recent decades by several regional monarchies in advanced air defense systems, often acquired directly from the United States or Israel. This relative insufficiency, documented through the real impact of these strikes, calls for a significant strengthening of regional security cooperation on integrated missile defense.

This gap in collective regional defense illustrates the need for much deeper integration of missile defense systems among the different Gulf countries, a coordination that remains largely insufficient today despite the formal existence of the Gulf Cooperation Council for several decades.

An opportunity to strengthen regional security architecture

This crisis could nonetheless become an opportunity to accelerate the construction of a genuine integrated regional security architecture in the Gulf, combining coordinated missile defense, real-time intelligence sharing among allies, and stronger Western engagement in the form of more explicit and more credible security guarantees than those offered so far to these particularly exposed monarchies.

It is this costly but necessary structural lesson that should now guide regional security cooperation in the Gulf for years to come, rather than simply reacting to each new wave of Iranian strikes as they occur.

The Gulf can no longer afford a fragmented, country-by-country missile defense in the face of an Iranian regime that has shown its ability to strike several regional targets simultaneously within a matter of days, security integration is no longer an option, it is an urgent necessity.

What this crisis reveals about the nature of the Iranian regime and regional vulnerabilities

A regime willing to sacrifice its regional relationships for a show of force

What this triple strike against Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait ultimately reveals is the Iranian regime's willingness to sacrifice diplomatic relationships with Arab neighbors, sometimes patiently cultivated over years, in favor of an immediate show of force meant to demonstrate its capacity for retaliation against American and Israeli strikes. This strategic choice, costly for long-term regional diplomacy, illustrates Tehran's real priorities when it feels directly threatened in its very existence.

This willingness to sacrifice useful diplomatic relationships for immediate tactical gain confirms, once again, the fundamentally unstable and unpredictable nature of Iranian strategic calculation, a factor that should prompt all regional and Western actors to never underestimate Tehran's willingness to resort to escalatory measures that, from the outside, appear contrary to its own long-term interests.

Further confirmation of the need for Western firmness

This sequence of regional strikes confirms, once again, that Western firmness toward Iran, however costly and risky, remains the only realistic strategy in the face of a regime that has demonstrated, through this crisis and documented historical precedents, its constant willingness to resort to force and regional intimidation rather than good-faith diplomatic negotiation, as soon as its own immediate strategic interests demand it.

This confirmation must never, however, serve as a pretext for gratuitous escalation or for forgetting the real human consequences suffered by the civilian populations of Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait, who remain the first victims of this regional retaliation dynamic that they never chose or provoked.

Western firmness toward Iran is never a pleasure, it is a necessity imposed by a regime that consistently prefers to demonstrate its strength through missiles rather than negotiate in good faith, and this Gulf crisis is one more documented proof of that.

A precedent that could durably reshape Gulf alliances

Beyond its immediate impact, this triple Iranian strike could durably reshape the map of strategic alliances in the Gulf, pushing some monarchies to further strengthen their military and diplomatic alignment with Washington, while others might instead seek to diversify their security partnerships to reduce their exclusive dependence on American guarantees, deemed insufficiently protective against this type of direct regional escalation.

This potential redefinition of regional alliances, whose exact scale remains difficult to precisely anticipate at this stage of the crisis, constitutes one of the most significant structural consequences of this sequence of strikes, far beyond the material and human damage directly caused by the Iranian missiles themselves.

A reminder that geography remains a decisive strategic factor

This crisis reminds us, with particular clarity, that geography remains a decisive strategic factor in contemporary conflicts, despite decades of globalization and growing economic interconnection among nations. Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait are today paying, very concretely, the price of their geographic proximity to an Iran determined to extend its retaliation across its entire immediate sphere of influence.

This fundamental geographic lesson, as old as geopolitics itself, deserves to be forcefully restated at a time when some observers had tended to underestimate the persistent importance of territorial proximity in realistically assessing contemporary regional security risks.

No modern diplomatic sophistication erases the raw reality of geography, and Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait have just received, in the form of missiles, a painful reminder that proximity to a hostile regime remains, even today, one of the most decisive risk factors in the world.

Conclusion: three countries, one shared regional lesson

What the documented facts allow us to state today

At the end of this analysis, a precise factual finding clearly emerges: Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait were indeed directly struck by Iranian missiles in early July 2026, according to converging reports from Reuters, India Today, Euronews, and Asharq Al-Awsat, as a direct part of the Iranian retaliatory sequence following the massive wave of American strikes on July 11 to 12, 2026, against IRGC infrastructure.

This triple strike confirms that the regional escalation triggered by the Strait of Hormuz crisis and the IRGC's initial attack on three commercial vessels on July 7 has spread beyond the strict boundaries of the Israeli-American-Iranian conflict to directly affect third countries that had never sought to become militarily involved in this confrontation.

A Western vigilance that must never again waver

What this crisis teaches, beyond the documented damage in Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait alone, is the West's pressing need to fundamentally rethink its regional security architecture in the Gulf, by offering more explicit and more credible guarantees to its most geographically exposed allies, rather than passively waiting for the next wave of Iranian strikes to react once again in a rush.

This regional lesson ultimately fits into a broader lesson about the nature of the threat posed by the global authoritarian axis formed by Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea, whose every regional provocation, from the Gulf to Ukraine, calls for a unified, coherent, and lasting Western response, rather than fragmented crisis-by-crisis management.

Signed Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

What I know and what I do not know

I know that Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait were struck by Iranian missiles in early July 2026, according to converging reports from Reuters, India Today, Euronews, and Asharq Al-Awsat, in the direct context of Iranian retaliation following the massive American strikes of July 11 and 12, 2026. I also know that the Gulf Cooperation Council issued a collective condemnation of these strikes.

I do not know the exact and final human and material toll of these strikes at the time of writing this analysis, as available information is evolving rapidly by the hour. I would rather state this clearly than put forward unconfirmed figures that could prove inaccurate once complete official tallies are established by the relevant authorities of each affected country.

Method

This analysis relies on information reported by Reuters, India Today, Euronews, Asharq Al-Awsat, and PBS regarding the Iranian strikes on Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait in early July 2026. No scene was invented, no direct testimony is claimed, and every fact reported comes from the cited journalistic sources.

My editorial angle is deliberate: I believe this escalation confirms the need for continued Western firmness toward Iran, while acknowledging the moral responsibility that this firmness carries toward the civilian populations of the Gulf directly exposed to the consequences of this broader regional conflict.

Sources

Primary sources

Reuters, Iran targets sites in Bahrain and Kuwait after wave of US strikes — July 8, 2026

PBS, Iran attacks Bahrain and Kuwait following US strikes and threatens to halt talks — July 2026

Asharq Al-Awsat, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and UAE come under Iranian attacks — July 2026

Secondary sources

Euronews, Iran launches attacks on Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, and Kuwait after US strikes — July 12, 2026

India Today, US airstrikes on Iran and Iranian attacks on Bahrain and Qatar put ceasefire at risk — July 9, 2026

India Today, Strait of Hormuz crisis deepens as Tehran targets Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar — July 10, 2026