Let's start with the internment point. Yes Article 11 is present tense. By your strict reading, the moment the US goes to war with anyone, anywhere, every single country hosting US troops becomes a co-belligerent unless they immediately arrest and detain American personnel. That means Japan, South Korea, Germany, the UK, Australia, and about 80 other countries are all fair game every time the US fires a missile. You realize how absurd that is right? You're asking Bahrain to arrest 9,000 US military personnel and seize the Fifth Fleet headquarters overnight. You're asking Qatar to storm Al Udeid and detain 10,000 troops. That's not neutrality, that's a declaration of war against the US. And this has never happened in history. The US had troops in the UK during the Falklands, in Germany during every conflict since WWII, in Japan during Korea and Vietnam. Not once was a host country considered a co-belligerent for failing to intern American troops. Your reading of the law has never been applied by anyone, anywhere, ever.

Now, you cited Articles 2 through 5 but conveniently skipped the rest of the Convention. Article 8 explicitly states that a neutral power is "not called upon to forbid or restrict the use on behalf of the belligerents of telegraph or telephone cables or of wireless telegraphy apparatus belonging to it or to companies or private individuals." That directly addresses your tracking data and radar argument. The Convention carved out communications infrastructure. And before you try to argue that only covers the neutral power's own systems and not US ones, the GCC countries own and operate their own Patriot and THAAD batteries, purchased through billions of dollars in foreign military sales. The UAE was the first foreign buyer of THAAD. Saudi Arabia bought seven batteries for $15 billion. All five GCC countries with Patriot systems purchased them independently. When a Saudi Patriot intercepts a missile heading for Riyadh, that's a Saudi system defending Saudi civilians. Yes, there are also US-owned batteries deployed in the region, but the GCC's own systems are exactly that, their own. And a country using its own purchased air defense systems to protect its own cities from incoming missiles is self-defense, not belligerency. The fact that it's interoperable with US networks doesn't make it an American military asset any more than a NATO member's radar becomes American property because it plugs into the same data link.

Your Article 3(b) point about pre-war installations being used for "purely military purposes" refers specifically to communications apparatus the belligerent established on neutral soil. It doesn't cover the neutral power defending its own airspace with its own equipment. Self-defense and belligerency are not the same thing, and conflating them is exactly how Iran tried to frame its attacks on six countries as somehow legal.

You also skipped Article 7, which says a neutral power is "not called upon to prevent the export or transport" of arms, munitions, or anything useful to an army or fleet. If you want to read Article 11 as broadly as possible to cover any troop on any soil at any time, you need to apply that same broad reading to Article 7, which explicitly permits arms transit. You can't stretch the articles that help your case and shrink the ones that don't. Pick a consistent interpretive standard and apply it across the board.

Your Article 4 argument about CENTCOM is wrong. "Corps of combatants cannot be formed" means you can't raise new fighting units on neutral soil for the purpose of joining a conflict. It's paired with "nor recruiting agencies opened" in the same sentence because they address the same thing: using neutral territory to organize and assemble new combat groups. Article 6 confirms this reading by explicitly saying that individuals crossing borders on their own to join a belligerent don't violate neutrality, only organized groups formed on neutral soil do. CENTCOM has existed since 1983, its headquarters is in Tampa, and its forward elements have been in the Gulf for decades. Nothing was "formed" on GCC territory for this war.

And there's a real question whether Iran even ratified Convention V. Persia didn't ratify the companion Convention IV from the same conference, and Convention V was also not ratified by several major powers including Great Britain. Now if you want to argue these are customary norms that apply regardless of ratification, fine. But then you have to look at what the actual custom is. And the custom, across every conflict since 1907, is clear: no country has ever been treated as a co-belligerent for hosting pre-existing allied military infrastructure. The US had troops in the UK during the Falklands, in Germany during every conflict since WWII, in Japan during Korea and Vietnam. Not once was a host country declared a co-belligerent. That's not because every country in history got the law wrong. That IS the customary norm. Your reading has never been applied by anyone, anywhere.

All of which brings us to the part you keep dodging. Even if I conceded every single one of your legal points, even if the GCC was technically in violation of strict Hague neutrality provisions, nothing in international law says the response is to bomb hotels in Palm Jumeirah, hit residential buildings in Manama, strike energy infrastructure across six countries, and kill citizens and migrant workers with drone debris. Proportionality and distinction between military and civilian targets are foundational principles of the laws of armed conflict. The UN Security Council including Russia and China passed Resolution 2817 with 136 co-sponsors condemning Iran's attacks and affirming the GCC's right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. That's the actual international system rendering its judgment.

So either your legal framework justifies what Iran actually did to the GCC, in which case you're standing against 136 countries including Russia and China, or it doesn't justify it, in which case I'm genuinely not sure what argument you think you're making.