The Trump administration’s reported consideration of officially promoting the term ‘Arabian Gulf’ in place of the long-established ‘Persian Gulf’ has triggered renewed diplomatic tension in an already volatile region. The move challenges millennia of historical precedent and has the potential to escalate rivalry between Iran and the Arab states lining the Gulf’s southwestern shores.
The body of water, extending from the Shatt al-Arab delta to the Strait of Hormuz, is one of the world’s most strategic maritime corridors. For over two thousand years—since the ascendancy of the Achaemenid Empire in the sixth century BCE—it has been universally referenced as the ‘Persian Gulf,’ its name preserved in the writings of ancient geographers, classic historians, and countless international treaties. This established nomenclature is a source of enduring pride and identity for Iran and is fiercely defended on both the diplomatic and information fronts.
The nomenclature dispute entered a new era in the 1950s as the wave of Arab nationalism spread across the region. Newly independent Arab states bordering the Gulf—specifically Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, and Oman—began promoting ‘Arabian Gulf’ to reflect the demographic realities of the region and assert political autonomy in an age of decolonization. The Arab League adopted the term in its official documents, citing the majority Arab population living alongside the Gulf’s shores.
Iran, for its part, views any deviation from the historical term as a direct challenge to its sovereignty and regional status. Tehran routinely protests the use of ‘Arabian Gulf’ by international organizations, airlines, and even technology companies, at times threatening commercial bans or other reprisals. In addition to defending the Gulf’s name, Iran claims sovereignty over several strategically significant islands within the waterway—most notably Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb—disputed by the United Arab Emirates.
The reported U.S. inclination towards ‘Arabian Gulf’ signals a realignment of American Middle East policy, emphasizing cooperation with Arab partners and countering Iran’s assertive posture across the region. This is consistent with Washington’s recent initiatives, such as the Abraham Accords, which saw Israel and several Gulf Arab states normalize diplomatic relations, united by shared concerns over Iran’s regional ambitions and sponsorship of terror networks.
Iranian officials have repeatedly warned that renaming the Gulf would be interpreted as a hostile act with regional and global repercussions. Reaction is expected to include intensified anti-American rhetoric, media campaigns, and possible retaliatory measures via Iranian proxies or information warfare, consistent with Iran’s broader campaign to shape global narratives and defend its claims.
For Israel, the outcome of this dispute is significant. Iranian control over the Persian Gulf, both real and symbolic, enhances its ability to generate revenue for its terror networks, project military power, and threaten Israeli and regional security. From Jerusalem’s perspective, every step taken to challenge Iran’s monopoly over the Gulf’s identity contributes to a broader campaign to contain and deter Iranian-backed aggression, including through terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
The struggle for terminological supremacy is emblematic of deeper struggles for influence, legitimacy, and security in the Middle East. The Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf naming controversy encapsulates the intersection of history, identity, and geopolitics in a region shaped by the ambitions of empires, the rise of nation-states, and today’s network of rival powers.
As the Trump administration weighs its position, the world’s focus sharpens on the region’s strategic waterways—not just as geographic landmarks, but as symbols of the ongoing contest for the future of the Middle East. The outcome is likely to have a lasting impact on diplomatic alignments, regional security calculations, and the struggle against Iranian-backed terror, underscoring the enduring role of history and language in shaping modern-day conflict.
