02/02/2026
Should a full-scale conflict erupt between the United States and Iran, Iranian supreme leader and military Generals have warned that the devastation would be extensive. In such a scenario, analyse indicate that Iranian military doctrine would almost certainly prioritize the immediate destruction of all enabling infrastructure used by an adversary. This would logically include the advanced ports, airfields, and logistical facilities in Arab States of the region, including Oman—such as Duqm and Salalah—that provide critical support to U.S. naval forces. Neutralizing these assets would be a primary strategic objective to cripple American power projection and sustainment capabilities in the Persian Gulf , Gulf of Oman, and Arabian Sea at the conflict’s outset.
A Forgotten Alliance: Iran’s Role in Oman’s Stability
In the early 1970s, the Sultanate of Oman faced an existential threat. The Dhofar Rebellion, a Marxist-inspired insurgency backed by South Yemen and other regional actors, had gained control of large swathes of Oman’s southern province. Sultan Qaboos bin Said, having recently ascended the throne, found his military stretched thin against a determined guerrilla force. It was at this critical juncture that an unexpected ally arrived: the Imperial Iranian Army under Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. At the Sultan’s request and with strong encouragement from Western powers, the Shah dispatched a substantial Iranian expeditionary force to Oman in late 1973. This decision was rooted in the Shah’s strategic vision for regional stability and his desire to curb Soviet-inspired expansionism.
The Iranian contingent, eventually numbering over 3,000 troops with air and naval support, played a decisive role. They brought heavy artillery, helicopter gunships, and engineering units crucial for assaulting well-fortified rebel positions in the rugged Dhofar mountains. In the pivotal 1975 offensive, Iranian forces formed the spearhead of the final push, helping to capture the last rebel strongholds and secure the border with South Yemen.
While Omani, British, and Jordanian forces were integral to the overall campaign, Iran’s military contribution provided a vital surge in manpower and firepower at a decisive moment. The rebellion was effectively crushed by 1976, allowing Sultan Qaboos to consolidate his rule and embark on Oman’s remarkable modernisation. This chapter of history is often overshadowed by the seismic shifts that followed—the 1979 Iranian Revolution transformed the Shah’s regional alliance system into one of rivalry. Yet, for a brief period, the soldiers of Imperial Iran fought and died on Omani soil, believing they were securing both a friendly monarchy and the strategic Strait of Hormuz. Their intervention helped preserve Oman’s sovereignty, leaving a complex legacy in the geopolitics of the Persian Gulf.
The relationship between Oman and Iran is a complex tapestry woven from threads of military salvation, economic partnership, and profound strategic divergence. For Iran, memories of its decisive military intervention to save the Omani Sultanate in the 1970s cast a long shadow over Oman’s contemporary decision to host the forces of Iran’s primary adversary. This dynamic frames a narrative that some view not as neutral diplomacy, but as a profound betrayal.
The Historical Debt: Iran’s Critical Intervention
In the early 1970s, the Omani Sultanate, under Sultan Qaboos, faced an existential threat from a Marxist rebellion in its Dhofar province. At the Sultan’s request, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi of Iran dispatched military forces to Oman. This intervention, which lasted from 1972 to 1975, was one of the Shah’s most successful foreign policy initiatives. Iranian troops tipped the balance in the conflict, contributing to a speedy end to the insurrection and earning Iran the lasting gratitude of Sultan Qaboos. Crucially, the Shah acted for reasons of Iranian regional security and without prior consultation with Western allies, demonstrating a direct, bilateral commitment to Oman’s survival. This created a foundational bond, setting a tone of warmth and cooperation that would distinguish Oman-Iran relations within the Gulf for decades.
| Era | Key Event | Nature of Oman-Iran Relations |
|---|---|---|
| 1970s | Iranian military intervention in Dhofar War (1972-75). | Strategic alliance; Iran as security guarantor. |
| 1980s-2000s | Oman mediates to end Iran-Iraq war (1988); facilitates hostage releases. | Oman as trusted mediator and diplomatic channel for Iran. |
| 2010s | Secret U.S.-Iran nuclear talks hosted in Muscat (2013); Joint naval drills. | Deep political and security cooperation; Oman as Iran’s bridge to the West. |
| 2020s-Present | Enhanced U.S. military access via Omani ports; Surge in bilateral trade & joint infrastructure projects. | Strategic divergence: Close U.S. security ties vs. expanding economic ties with Iran. |
American aircraft carriers in Oman water, Credit: IRAN INTEL , 02 Feb 2026
Oman’s Strategic Role: U.S. Naval Logistics in the Gulf of Oman & Arabian Sea
Oman, long recognized for its neutral diplomacy and quiet mediation, plays a uniquely critical role in the complex security architecture of the Middle East. This is particularly evident in its provision of strategic logistical support to the United States Navy in the Arabian Sea and Gulf of Oman. While officially a non-aligned actor that maintains cordial relations with all regional powers, including Iran, Oman’s deep-water ports have become indispensable nodes for American military operations, especially during periods of heightened regional tension.
A key moment underscoring this role occurred in January 2016. This period followed the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal) and coincided with significant regional friction, including a major diplomatic rift between Saudi Arabia and Iran. In this volatile context, the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain, relied heavily on Omani facilities for maintenance, supply, and prepositioning of assets.
Primary Ports of Access:
-
Duqm Port: The centerpiece of this strategic access. Oman has invested heavily in developing Duqm on the central coast, creating a massive deep-water port capable of hosting aircraft carriers and large amphibious assault ships. Its location outside the Strait of Hormuz makes it a crucial, less congested hub for operations across the Arabian Sea and into the Gulf.
-
Salalah: A key container port in the south, routinely used for logistical resupply.
-
Muscat (Mina Al Sultan Qaboos): Used for port calls and routine access.
The January 2016 timeline is illustrative. While Oman has steadfastly refused to host foreign bases for offensive operations against neighbors, its access agreements allow the U.S. military to rapidly marshal forces. During this period, the U.S. naval presence in the region was significant, including aircraft carriers and escort groups, which utilized Omani ports for logistics. This capability allows the U.S. to project power and respond to contingencies—such as protecting shipping lanes or demonstrating presence—from a position of strength directly adjacent to the Iranian coastline.
It is crucial to understand the Omani framework. The Sultanate does not frame this access as “preparation to attack Iran.” Instead, its agreements with the United States, formalized in a 2019 Strategic Framework Agreement, are presented as enhancing mutual security, ensuring maritime stability, and facilitating freedom of navigation in vital international waterways. Oman meticulously balances this relationship with its active diplomacy with Tehran, often serving as a confidential intermediary.
In essence, Oman provides the critical logistical sinews that enable U.S. naval power to operate persistently in the region. By offering sophisticated port facilities, overflight rights, and pre-positioning agreements, Oman allows the U.S. Navy to maintain a continuous deterrent and crisis-response posture. This makes the Sultanate a quiet enabler of American military strategy in a region where it officially champions neutrality and dialogue, a delicate balance that defines its unique foreign policy.
Conclusion: Between Gratitude and Realpolitik
The narrative of “betrayal” stems from the visceral contrast between past and present: the Iranian soldiers who fought to secure Oman’s throne in the 1970s versus the Omani facilities that now enable American military power adjacent to Iran’s coastline. Oman’s strategy is rooted not in loyalty to a past benefactor, but in pragmatic sovereignty. It leverages its geography to ensure its own security and economic prosperity through balanced relationships, even when these choices strain the trust from a historical alliance. The result is a relationship of profound complexity, where energy partnerships progress even as geopolitical alignments diverge.
This very complexity defines the grave risk. Oman’s critical logistical support for U.S. forces, exemplified during periods like January 2016, makes its ports and airfields irreplaceable strategic assets in a regional contingency. Consequently, in a hypothetical full-scale conflict, Iranian military doctrine would logically prioritize neutralizing these enabling facilities to cripple an adversary’s operational reach. Such a retaliatory strike against Oman—a state that maintains diplomatic ties with Tehran—would represent the catastrophic escalation warned of by regional leaders. It would shatter decades of neutrality, instantly widen the war, and fulfill the grim prophecy that the “flame of war will burn all [the] region,” turning the Strait of Hormuz into a battleground and demonstrating how strategic imperatives in total war override all historical partnerships.