It is a good sign that US President Donald Trump says he acted on advice from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE in postponing another round of strikes on Iran and giving negotiations a chance. Gulf states aren’t acting out of sympathy for Tehran. They are engaged because their interests broadly align with those of Washington: containing Iran without setting the region — and the global economy — on fire.

The region’s calculation increasingly diverges from the priorities of the extreme coalition governing Israel. Even inside Israel, critics such as former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert say the government “doesn’t represent a real genuine national security interest” — that it’s not acting in the interests of its own citizens, let alone those of the US or other regional powers.

Most Gulf countries understand the rationale for confronting Iran and agree with the Israeli opinion that having the US involved in the war was a good thing. But there are serious questions in the region about the strategy the US and Israel have adopted.

Israel’s central role makes it much more difficult for most Gulf countries to take sides. Saudi Arabia has made it clear that it did not lobby for, encourage, or want the war to start. The campaign has not produced meaningful change in Tehran and there is little reason to suppose that more strikes would suddenly force Iran into capitulation. This explains the Gulf advice to Washington not to strike again and the kingdom’s refusal to allow its air and ground bases to be used.

When Saudi Arabia allegedly retaliated against Iranian attacks, it did so alone, outside the framework of the US-Israeli military action. The situation would have been different, according to my reading, had some questions been addressed prior to the war about whether the US was prepared to put boots on the ground, was equipped to rapidly rearm, and understood the risks and potential scale of collateral damage.

Some argue that Iran would have attacked the Gulf either way. And yes, Tehran has made it clear that its strategy is to make this war as expensive as possible for the rest of the world, not least by attacking Gulf oil fields, refineries, ports, and cities.

While the Iranian attacks have been disruptive and destructive, there’s a question of scale and proportionality that Gulf countries are considering. They see a difference between attempting to limit energy supplies and destroying critical power and water infrastructure. This hasn’t happened, and the patience shown by Gulf countries isn’t weakness, but a recognition of the reality that, while the Iranian regime may be happy to sacrifice citizens to keep what it has, Gulf Arab countries’ priority is to protect their nationals and foreign residents.

This is why Riyadh is clear in backing the Pakistan-led negotiations, along with a firm stance against returning to war, an insistence on the unconditional reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and a willingness to discuss Iranian threats and concerns thereafter. Many ideas for the future have been floated, such as a non-aggression pact or other regional security architectures.

This may appear as if a new axis is being formed, but there is no change in the overarching alliance that underpins the region’s security. The Gulf states’ military cooperation and strategic alliance with the US is steadfast and ironclad. Perhaps one day, Washington will learn that the best advice comes from the steady Gulf monarchies, not from an Israeli prime minister facing prosecution who is part of a messianic coalition.

A decade ago, the Obama administration insisted on focusing only on the Iranian nuclear threat. Had Gulf partners’ concerns over Tehran’s ballistic missile program and its support for regional militias been addressed back, then it’s unlikely we would be where we are today.

In the longer term, we are all trapped by geography. Iran is a neighbor and we are going to have to coexist, cooperate, and concentrate on building a better future for both Arabs and Iranians. This can only happen if Tehran agrees to end its malicious activities and actions. If a deal comes through negotiations — the preferred route of most Gulf countries — then the purpose of the war would have been achieved without firing an additional bullet.

Faisal J. Abbas is an award-winning journalist and Editor-in-Chief of Arab News.