In a moment emblematic of deeper strategic shifts, U.S. Senator Tom Cotton recently corrected a journalist who referred to the regional waterway between Iran and the Arab states as the ‘Persian Gulf,’ insisting instead on the term ‘Arabian Gulf.’ This intervention, though seemingly minor, is a powerful political signal, reflecting evolving American attitudes and an intensifying posture against Iranian geopolitical ambitions and state-sponsored terror.
The historical struggle surrounding the naming of this body of water reflects centuries-old rivalries between Persia (now Iran) and its Arab neighbors. While Western maps have long labeled it the ‘Persian Gulf,’ many Arab states and their allies, particularly those facing Iranian threats, have increasingly championed the term ‘Arabian Gulf’ as an assertion of political independence and resistance to Iranian hegemony. For Iran, the name ‘Persian Gulf’ is deeply tied to national identity, with repeated protests lodged against any recognition of the alternative nomenclature by international organizations and foreign governments.
This conflict over terminology has grown to reflect broader confrontations. The United States and Israel, faced with a growing web of Iranian-backed proxies—Hamas terrorists in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and affiliated groups in Syria and Iraq—have become less deferential to Iranian preferences and more willing to adopt terms aligning with their Arab partners. The October 7, 2023 Hamas massacre in southern Israel, the deadliest antisemitic attack since the Holocaust, sharpened the need among allies to present a united front against Iranian-backed terrorism.
The Israeli government views language as an essential part of its wider struggle for security and legitimacy. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and senior Israeli defense and diplomatic officials consistently stress the importance of clarity in both action and discourse. As Israel endures missile attacks and other terrorist threats, clear language—such as specifying the affiliations of hostile actors—serves to highlight the gravity and moral clarity of Israel’s cause, as well as the state’s right to defend itself against orchestrated attacks.
U.S. lawmakers, like Senator Cotton, have similarly recognized the symbolic and practical implications of language. The term ‘Arabian Gulf’ is used intentionally as a gesture of solidarity with Gulf partners such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain, who have normalized relations or deepened cooperation with Israel in recent years. The Abraham Accords marked a landmark moment in Arab-Israeli relations and reoriented the regional security order. American rhetorical choices now further reinforce these emerging partnerships.
The struggle over the Gulf’s name is not merely about maps, but about real strategic stakes. The waterway is the conduit for up to a fifth of globally traded oil. Control and free passage have always been integral to international security and economic stability. Iran’s repeated threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, confronted by the U.S. Fifth Fleet and now by increasingly coordinated U.S.-Israel-Arab military efforts, highlight how these struggles are played out.
The current American posture reflects both a response to recent history and forward-looking planning. Since the Arab Spring, Iran’s ‘axis of resistance’ strategy became more aggressive; its proxies have executed rocket attacks, missile launches, and terror operations across the region. Israel’s war against Hamas since October 2023, its necessary responses to attacks from Hezbollah and the Houthis, and ongoing multinational military exercises demonstrate the tangible alignment among Israel, the United States, and their regional allies.
Semantic choices, particularly regarding an issue as charged as the naming of the Gulf, thus become statements of intent and solidarity. They assure Arab partners of U.S. commitment and clarify the adversarial status—both morally and strategically—of the Iranian regime and its clients. At the same time, the U.S. and Israel emphasize their shared commitment to international law, defensive warfare, and distinction between sovereign self-defense and the activities of Iranian-backed terror networks.
In summary, Senator Tom Cotton’s language in this exchange highlights a broader trend: the deliberate use of diplomatic and strategic terminology by the United States and Israel to reflect new realities in the Middle East. As Iranian-backed terrorism persists, and as the stakes of moral and historical clarity grow higher, such choices reinforce the legitimacy of Israel’s defensive war and the right of all regional states to define their security landscape in honest and resolute terms.
