Who exactly is it who doesn’t have anything to lose? Even if the Gulf States have far more and far better planes and even far better pilots, one single hit by an European bomber or missile can do a lot of damage. Also, starving the West of oil could mean a rise of the BRICS-countries, from the frying pan into the fire. Note that bombing raids in retaliation against European cities would mainly hurt Muslim immigrants and their liberal elite protectors, that is, the much-hated doctrine of collateral damage.
Cf. catapults during the siege of Ta’if.
The targets intended by the catapults were clearly not civilians, women, or children, though there was a remote possibility under those circumstances that some civilians could have been injured unintentionally. This, however, is quite different than intentionally attacking civilian targets, women, and children. Any direct attack against such people is categorically unlawful and had been expressly prohibited by the Prophet (peace be upon him).
Many internet tough guys call for the nuking of Mekka, while ignoring lesser targets like Tetouan, El Hoceima, and Smir, overlooking that conventional weapons are useful enough, and don’t leave radiation damage and such. They lose all sense of proportionality, while the wimpy maggots freak out at a simple knife and couldn’t even get a handgun if their eternal salvation depended upon it. The internet tough guys are more likely to be nuked, or struck by drone-launched missiles themselves.
That said, I don’t believe in a bilateral Clash of Civilizations. The next conflict will be multipolar.