CounterPunch Exclusives

CounterPunch Exclusives

The Fragility of Gulf States

Photo by Charles-Adrien Fournier

Four Gulf States—Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE)—are structurally fragile and may not survive a prolonged U.S.–Israel–Iran conflict. They were carved out of the region and established in the late 20th century, following the decline of the British Empire. Located on the western coast of the Persian Gulf, they face Iran across the water on the eastern coast. The other two Gulf States, Saudi Arabia and Oman, are relatively secure. Saudi Arabia, the largest in both land area and population, faces no significant threat to its existence.

The four fragile states, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and the UAE, gained independence in 1961 (Kuwait) and 1971 (the other three). These countries quickly became what might be called migrant states because their populations were largely composed of migrant workers. Foreign nationals in some of these states account for up to 90% of the total population. In contrast, Saudi Arabia and Oman, despite having large foreign-national populations, are mostly composed of native-born residents.

As of 2026, expatriates make up approximately 88.5% of the UAE’s total population (around 10.24 million out of 11.57 million) and about 88% of Qatar’s population (roughly 2.87 million foreign workers out of 3.2 million). In Kuwait, expatriates account for about 67–70% of the population (roughly 3.7 million out of around 5.5 million), while in Bahrain, the foreign population is around 52% (approximately 849,000 non-Bahrainis out of 1.59 million in 2024).

To understand their fragility, one must first analyze the legal and demographic makeup of these four Gulf States, since they are essentially migrant states.

A migrant state is not the same as an immigrant state. The United States and Canada, for example, are immigrant states in the sense that a large share of their populations are immigrants. An immigrant state allows immigrants to become citizens after meeting certain residency, moral, and other requirements. Even if the road to citizenship is made harder, the road is never closed.  After naturalization, immigrants have the right to vote, run for office at the state and federal levels, and, for all practical purposes, are treated at par with born citizens.

Society in an immigrant state may discriminate against legal immigrants and naturalized citizens based on nationality, race, language, and religion. Still, the law and the constitution of an immigrant state make no distinction between born and naturalized citizens, granting extensive rights even to legal immigrants. For example, the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This constitutional commitment to equal protection of the laws is a hallmark of most immigrant states. Even though President Trump has challenged the integrity of the 14th Amendment in the Supreme Court, a case widely predicted to fail, the Gulf States have no law resembling the 14th Amendment. In fact, migrant states are governed by unequal laws. Some critics compare these states to apartheid-like stratification, as inequality among groups is legally validated and enforced.

A migrant state comprises two distinct groups of people. One is the native inhabitants who are the citizens of the state. The other group is the workers recruited from other nations, which may be called........

© CounterPunch