Middle East conflict only resolved through diplomacy
16 June 2025 00:33
By Dr. Mohammed Abdullah Al-Ali*
The Middle East is a region that rarely finds calm before slipping back into tension. Over the past two years, the intensity of the escalation has increased sharply, with no clear path to sustainable de-escalation.The proliferation of conflicts, the emergence of competing actors and contradictory objectives, along with mounting human suffering and economic strain, have created a growing sense of uncertainty. This uncertainty hit a new high on June 13, 2025, when Israel launched strikes on Iran, ushering in a dangerous new chapter in a region already divided and unstable.Even though there had been indications of a potential confrontation between Israel and Iran, especially with the ongoing war in Gaza since October 7, 2023, the weakening of Iran's regional proxies, advances in Iran's nuclear programme (according to both Tel Aviv and the International Atomic Energy Agency), and tense US-Iran nuclear negotiations risking the threat of war, the scale of the Israeli escalation, targeting nuclear and military facilities, and Iran's response following the killing of top commanders came as a shock.The predictions are that the war will be brief, as its continuation means it would spread, perhaps to other fronts in the region.The longer the war drags on and expands geographically, the more likely it is that the sound of drones and fighter jets will eclipse diplomacy and political dialogue.
The possibility of the conflict engulfing the entire region increases if containment efforts fail. As a result, growth forecasts have dimmed, and states have turned to policies aimed at shielding their economies from shocks in the hope of maintaining stability.
Trade and tourism have been affected. Furthermore, the political and economic fallout will not be limited only to combat zones and neighbouring nations, but it will also threaten the entire region and perhaps the world if the situation spirals out of control - a possibility that cannot be ruled out.Energy and financial markets cannot remain stable in a constantly volatile environment, especially when warfare is no longer bound by borders. Some may have found solace in the fact that in the last two years, the wars in Gaza and Lebanon, or US strikes in Yemen, did not cause major disruptions. But if the current pace of escalation continues, the region may soon face severe turmoil in the energy markets, not to mention further human and material losses.The future of the Middle East now hinges on political settlements to its many conflicts, as well as on the regional and international arrangements that will follow.The region's long-term stability depends on its ability to develop a model of security and economic cooperation that promotes prosperity, not destruction, and that preserves the wealth of nations rather than squandering it on endless wars.There is no shortage of crises in the Middle East. The priority for countries should be to focus on economic development and the wellbeing of their people, not on wars that resolve no crisis and settle no dispute.Military force alone will not resolve long-standing issues. Many countries in the region face deep political, economic and security challenges that will take years of sustained effort to overcome. Yet there are also ambitious states working for the progress of their people and the wider region. These countries are determined not to let instability derail their aspirations for progress in all fields.Geopolitical tensions continue to paralyse the region and obstruct cross-border development projects.Global powers have shown only limited commitment to promoting peace and stability in the Middle East. As a result, there is a significant risk that the conflict will spread from one country to another.What is spared today may not be spared tomorrow, especially if the same international standards continue to govern responses to crises in the region.Indeed, the competing agendas of global powers often reflect broader rivalries, further complicating the path to peace.The current conflict points to significant shifts in the regional balance of power, especially if the confrontation between Israel and Iran escalates further, resulting in a nuclear incident, or Iran does battle on multiple regional fronts.What makes the situation even more dangerous is that neither a decisive victory nor a surrender appears likely. It won't be the last round, even if this one does end.Regardless of the justifications offered by either side, being drawn into a full-scale regional war or tipping the regional balance of power too far in favour of a certain side will only harm the Middle East as a whole.A prolonged war could worsen economic instability in the region and globally, fuel uncertainty, and undermine development efforts.Peace, by contrast, offers a path to prosperity for the people of the region. But real stability requires more than just halting wars. It demands a new approach to resolving conflicts, an approach that is based on negotiation and diplomacy.
*The writer is the CEO of think tank TRENDS Research & Advisory
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
23 minutes ago
- The National
Netanyahu's war on Iran is perilous on so many levels
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has launched a high-stakes military campaign against Iran – an initiative that not only undermines US President Donald Trump's stated objective of negotiating a diplomatic resolution to Iran's nuclear programme, but also risks entangling the Americans in another protracted conflict in the Middle East. This escalation imperils regional energy infrastructure, reinforces Tehran's rationale for nuclear deterrence and inadvertently could legitimise the Islamic Republic's long-standing narrative portraying Israel as the existential adversary of Iran and Iranians. Mr Netanyahu's calculus is strategically comprehensible. Deprived of its most capable non-state proxy, Lebanese Hezbollah, and with auxiliary Iran-backed militias across Syria and Iraq demonstrating operational ineffectiveness, Iran finds itself unable to impose credible deterrent costs on Israel. Its indigenous missile capabilities remain largely incapable of penetrating multi-layered and integrated air defence systems of Israel and its allies. Furthermore, Iran's own air defences are porous, leaving it vulnerable to precision strikes. From Mr Netanyahu's perspective, this moment presents a rare opportunity. Should Iran escalate matters – by targeting regional energy assets to internationalise the crisis or retaliating against US forces in the region – Israel hopes for direct American involvement. Thus, it is plausible that Mr Netanyahu's war aims extend beyond the degradation of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. His objectives may include leadership decapitation, regime collapse and perhaps even the fragmentation of the Iranian state through civil strife. Indeed, Mr Netanyahu has goaded the Iranian public to stand up against Tehran's ruling class. And although Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar later insisted that regime change is not his government's goal, US officials have since leaked information that Mr Trump vetoed an Israeli plan to assassinate Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In any case, Israel's high-risk strategy against Iran could end up becoming an open-ended conflict beyond its control. Mr Netanyahu may have persuaded Mr Trump that sustained Israeli military pressure would compel Tehran to give greater concessions in the nuclear negotiations with the US. Yet Iran has suspended all talks, and Mr Khamenei – while notably omitting criticism of the US in his initial reaction – appears to be recalibrating his government's strategic posture. Mr Trump, for his part, praised the Israeli strikes as 'excellent', but there is no clear indication that he intends to commit US forces to a full-scale regional war. More significantly, Israel's pre-emptive strike may have fundamentally shifted Iran's nuclear doctrine. In the aftermath of Iraq's invasion of Iran in 1980 and Baghdad's use of ballistic missiles against Iranian population centres, Tehran launched its missile development programme as a deterrent. Today, the inability to deter or respond meaningfully to Israeli aggression could catalyse a similar doctrinal evolution. This trajectory involves adopting a policy of nuclear latency or outright breakout, akin to North Korea's path. Pyongyang's acquisition of a rudimentary nuclear arsenal – despite global isolation and sanctions – enabled it to deter foreign intervention and preserve regime continuity. Iran's probable goal will be to assemble – and potentially test – a nuclear device to alter the regional strategic balance. A dual-capacity arsenal, capable of both signalling and retaliation, would enable Tehran to deter future existential threats. However, this would mean absorbing sustained Israeli strikes, overcoming technical blows to its nuclear programme, surviving leadership decapitation attempts, navigating potential ethnic insurgencies backed by external actors, and enduring severe economic attrition for a prolonged period – potentially six to 12 months. This scenario recalls the incremental degradation of the Iraqi state in the 1990s, which ultimately culminated in a full-scale US ground invasion to remove Saddam Hussein. Barring a comparable deployment of US ground forces in Iran, the Islamic Republic's coercive apparatus may be sufficient to retain control over any potential domestic unrest. In parallel, Iran may adjust its asymmetric deterrence doctrine by shifting focus from hardened Israeli targets to vulnerable energy and commercial assets in the Arabian Gulf. Regional hydrocarbon infrastructure could be targeted as part of a coercive strategy to compel de-escalation. Tehran may be willing to absorb reciprocal attacks against its own oil infrastructure in exchange for imposing strategic and economic costs on its Arab neighbours and the global energy market in the hope of mobilising international pressure on Israel to stop the war. Moreover, Mr Netanyahu may have inadvertently resolved a core ideological problem within the Islamic Republic's anti-Israel narrative. Iran and Israel, historically non-contiguous and without direct territorial disputes, have long had a pragmatic history of co-operation – both under the Pahlavi monarchy and even during the early years of the Islamic Republic, when Israel supplied Iran with US-origin arms during the Iran-Iraq War from 1980 to 1988. The Islamic Republic's anti-Zionist posture often rang hollow with ordinary Iranians, who struggled to identify a direct threat from Israel. Now, with Israeli munitions striking Tehran, killing civilians and targeting critical infrastructure, Israel's role as an adversary has acquired visceral legitimacy among the Iranian populace. Ultimately, Iran's decision-making in the coming weeks will be driven by regime survival imperatives in an increasingly precarious operating environment. Mr Netanyahu's gamble may have thrown Israel, Iran and the entire region in an open-ended conflict beyond Israel's control.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Iran-backed Iraqi militia threatens to attack Israel and its allies
A Tehran-backed armed faction in Iraq has threatened to join the war between Israel and Iran, heightening concerns that the conflict, now in its fourth day, could spread across the region. The True Promise Corps, part of a shadowy coalition calling itself the Islamic Resistance Iraq, said on Monday that it would launch attacks against Israel and its interests in the region. 'We declare that all the sites and camps of the entity [Israel] and anyone who supports it in the region are targets for us,' its leader, Mohammed Al Tamimi, said in a statement on X. The threat marks a sharp shift in tone by Iran-backed Iraqi militias, who said previously that they would enter the conflict only if US forces based in the country intervened to support Israel. The Islamic Resistance in Iraq has previously claimed responsibility for drone and rocket attacks against Israel and US forces in the region over Israel's war in Gaza. Mr Al Tamimi also threatened action against 'Israeli agents' in Iraq. He singled out the capital of Iraq's autonomous Kurdistan Region, Erbil, as a potential target, calling it a hub for 'training agents and spies'. Iran and its Iraqi proxies have long accused the Kurds of hosting a station of Israel's Mossad spy agency in the region. They have launched several attacks on Erbil, including with ballistic missiles launched from Iran. On Sunday, the powerful Kataib Hezbollah group said it was monitoring movements of US troops in the region. 'If America intervenes in the war, we will act without any hesitation against its interests and bases,' the group said. Other Iran-backed groups such as Hezbollah Harakat Al Nujabaa, Kata'ib Sayyid Al Shuhada and Asaib Ahl Al Haq have taken the same position. Tehran holds significant sway through political and paramilitary proxies in Iraq, and their involvement in the conflict could destabilise the country's recovery from years of war and sectarian violence. The Iraqi government has asked both Iran and US, its two most important allies, to stop it being caught up in the conflict, Iraqi officials have said. Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al Sudani told Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian in a phone call on Sunday that 'Iraq is keen to prevent the war from expanding', according to a statement from his office. Mr Pezeshkian 'urged the Iraqi government to take measures to protect its airspace and prevent its territory from being exploited by adversaries', according to an Iranian statement. In a move to alleviate Iranian concerns, Iraq deployed air defence systems in several 'sensitive areas' around the country on Sunday, mainly near the borders with Iran. Iraq has also lodged a formal complaint with the UN Security Council regarding Israel's violation of its airspace after it began attacking Iran on Friday.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Iran hangs man it claims was a Mossad spy
Iran says it has hanged a man it claims was a spy for Israel 's Mossad intelligence service. The Iranian judiciary's Mizan news website said Esmaeil Fekri was arrested in 2023 for espionage. It said he was executed after all legal procedures were completed and that the verdict was upheld by Iran's Supreme Court. 'During his collaboration with Mossad, Esmaeil Fekri attempted to provide classified and sensitive information about the country to the enemies of the Islamic Republic of Iran and receive a reward in return,' Mizan said on Monday. He was accused of passing to Mossad 'classified information, including sensitive locations and headquarters, information about specific individuals, organisational missions etc'. Misan said: 'In accordance with the court rulings and legal procedures, the defendant was hanged and his death sentence was carried out.' Iranian media reported on Sunday that police in Alborz province, west of Tehran, had arrested two other people suspected of links to Mossad. Later the same day, Israel said it had arrested two citizens suspected of working for Iran's intelligence services. Israel and Iran have been entangled in a shadow war for decades, but since Friday the conflict has broken into open warfare. Israel launched a surprise attack on Iranian nuclear and military facilities over fears that Tehran is seeking to build nuclear weapons. Iran denies that accusation. Iran has retaliated with barrages of drones and missiles that have killed at least 24 people in Israel, according to the latest figures from the prime minister's office on Monday. Tehran has in the past put to death many people it accuses of having links with Mossad and enabling its operations. Iran has long accused Israeli intelligence of carrying out sabotage operations against its nuclear facilities and assassinating its scientists.
