Yes. Qatar due to Iran's support of the Thani family during the tumultuous 1990s [0] and the blockade [1], Sudan under Bashir [2] and now under the Army [3], Tunisia [4] due to ties with Ennadha, Algeria until 2025 [5] due to Morocco and Israel's close defense cooperation, and Kuwait due to economic and clan ties [6].
> Pretty much all of them already see non-Arab Shia Iran as an enemy
Only those states directly aligned with Saudi or the UAE (they are not the same team) view Iran with hostility becuase of Saudi Arabia and Iran's perennial rivalry over the MidEast.
[0] - https://www.danielpipes.org/6317/hamad-bin-jasim-bin-jabr-al...
[1] - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/6/25/iran-hassan-rouhani...
[2] - https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/166344/235_Bodansky.pdf
[3] - https://www.bic-rhr.com/research/new-old-player-town-sudan-i...
[4] - https://iramcenter.org/en/inside-the-complexity-of-iran-tuni...
[5] - https://nouvellerevuepolitique.fr/hichem-aboud-comment-alger...
[6] - https://web.archive.org/web/20220717062931/http://www.payvan...
Because the core of the Iranian Revolution is quite similar to Maoism [0] but also very interested in exporting the revolution abroad.
You have to remember that the Iranian Revolution only happened in 1979, and most of Iran's modern leadership were foot soldiers and even leadership during Iran's Cultural Revolution [1] in the 1980s (eg. Rouhani, Larijani, Aref, Arafi).
Imagine if China today was ruled by active Red Guard, or if the 1976 autocoup failed - that's Iran, but with a dose of Islamism.
> I guess I overplayed the Shia/Sunni divide.
Yep. In fact, a number of Sunni states saw contemporary attempts to mimic the Iranian Revolution such as in Saudi Arabia with the Kaaba Siege, the Afghan Revolution in 1979 which led to the Soviet Occupation, and the burning the US Embassy in Islamabad in 1979 [2].
[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47108706
[1] - https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%82%D9%84%D8%A7...
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_U.S._embassy_burning_in_I...
It is a pity really, Iran is on my bucket list for food, culture, and natural beauty. More so than any other country in that area, its too bad about the whole "death to America" thing.
It's similar to China in that regard - rhetoric doesn't matter and you always look out for number one.
There's a reason why socially speaking China's Harvard remains Harvard even despite Peking and Tsinghua becoming global tier institutions, and why leadership who should supposedly be earning a couple thousand dollars a year are chauffeured in Audi A8s with full protocol in Beijing.
Most normal people are chill and average, but there's still a whole separate world of people within a small selectorate.
> which is weird when our side has the KSA, one of the most conservative countries on earth
KSA has socially liberalized as well, and the same style of hijab as you would see in Iran is the norm.
That said, unlike Iran's incumbent leadership, MBS and much of the governmental apparatus is highly likely to liberalize in the UAE manner in the next 3-5 years. The main blocker has been succession - MBS isn't officially king yet, as King Salman continues to reign.
That said, it would still remain an authoritarian state.
> It is a pity really, Iran is on my bucket list for food, culture, and natural beauty. More so than any other country in that area, its too bad about the whole "death to America" thing
Yep. It is what it is.
Qatar, the country hosting the Al Udeid Air Base, the biggest US military base in the middle east? That Qatar?
Iran on the other hand protected the Thani family during the failed 1996 countercoup, as well as collaborated with Qatar on extracting LNG from the Gulf.
In the real world, countries compartamentalize relations and are not binary in nature.
This is how India can both arm Israel [0] as well as transit Hormuz with Iranian backing [1] and continue to operate Chabahar Port [2] despite neighboring Konarak Port being hit [3].
When countries break this norm of compartmentalization, that is when they become actively belligerent.
Also, by this logic (which is flawed), we would be justified in striking Iran, as Iran has aided and abetted Russia in their war against Ukraine, thus Iran can arguably be treated as another front of the larger US-Russia and by extension US-China conflict.
[0] - https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/features/2024/6/26/india-expor...
[1] - https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-among-five-nati...
[2] - https://www.financialexpress.com/policy/economy/no-damage-to...
This means Ukraine has the precedent in place to target the Chongqing–Xinjiang–Europe railway in Russia in retaliation for Chinese support of Russia [0].
This also means all of Europe is fair game to be striked by Russia in retaliation for supporting Ukraine [2].
This also means South Korea considering rearming Ukraine [4] due to North Korean involvement in the Ukraine War could make it a direct belligerent against Russia.
This is why sentiments hardened globally and especially amongst Gulf States once they were targeted by Iran.
Accepting that nations like Qatar, Turkiye, and Azerbaijan that have an avowed policy of compartmentalized relations are fair game to strike means we have to accept we are in a de facto World War.
The attempted strike on Diego Garcia was similarly destabilizing in it's implications [5]
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chongqing%E2%80%93Xinjiang%E2%...
[1] - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/12/10/zelenskyy-warns-ru...
[2] - https://european-union.europa.eu/priorities-and-actions/eu-s...
[3] - https://apnews.com/article/trump-iran-saudi-arabia-mbs-gulf-...
[4] - https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/foreignaffairs/20260220/korea-m...
Hosting US assets actively being used in war vs Iran = being active co-belligerents. Host countries no longer neutral when they don't adhere to duty of abstention (Hague Convention V). This not even Iran using deniable proxies, this is Qatar allowing sovereign territory to facilitate attack on Iran, which unambiguously makes them legitimate target. Ditto with Diego Garcia.
In the same way railway in RU already legitimate target for UKR because in RU soil. If EU sending out sorties from NATO bases to hit RU then they too would be active belligerents. There's no compartmentalizing using territory to shoot someone else.
Additonally, by that logic it is acceptable for Ukraine to conduct kinetic action against Chinese assets in Russia, which they have held back against despite Chinese support for the Russian MIC.
Also, I told you years ago to not chat with me on this platform. We do not align and I have found it tiresome discussing with you. I have ignored and steered away from commenting with you and I ask you to do the same for me.
It's acceptable, as I said, targets in RU soil legitimate. Of course the UKR has their own calculation on what PRC interests in RU they're able to hit that's not counterproductive - PRC support for RU MIC can be much more than what it is.
Even if we accept moving from "rule based" doesn't discount realist/rational based which rule based is derived from. It is not hard to understand allowing your house to be used to shoot at someone else = your house is now legitimate target. Expecting immunity under those conditions is strategic fantasy, especially when IR hitting GCC countries is arguably not counter-productive.
None of your examples are actually analogous, they are all more distant support than hosting a base from which direct attacks are carried out except for the first one in which the "can of worms" is justifying attacks on a state that it is already a direct belligerent (and in fact the aggressor) because of third-party support, which, on the other hand, is not analogous for the opposite reason—it is very much not necessary to invoke any third-party action to justify that. The direct belligerence already justifies that.