The Middle East is once again being pushed towards a wider and potentially more devastating conflict, with little evidence that the powers driving the confrontation have a credible strategy for peace. Military escalation continues to dominate the thinking in Washington and Tel Aviv, while diplomacy appears increasingly marginalised. At a time when the region desperately needs restraint and dialogue, the rhetoric coming from the United States and Israel risks opening new fronts and drawing more countries into a conflict whose consequences could extend far beyond the Middle East.
US President Donald Trump’s latest comments about the Strait of Hormuz are particularly troubling. His suggestion that the United States could claim the strategically vital waterway after defeating Iran, coupled with threats against Oman, raises questions not only about the future of the conflict but also about the security of one of the world’s most important international shipping routes. Any serious disruption in the Strait of Hormuz could have immediate consequences for global energy markets, pushing up oil and gasoline prices and adding to inflationary pressures worldwide.
The strait is too important to become another theatre of confrontation. A significant share of the world’s oil supplies passes through it, making stability and freedom of navigation essential to the global economy. Instead of threatening countries involved in maintaining maritime security, Washington should encourage regional arrangements that reduce tensions and keep commercial shipping moving. Iran and Oman’s efforts to work out arrangements for shipping through the strait therefore deserve diplomatic support rather than pressure.
The broader US approach towards Iran is also becoming increasingly difficult to understand. Washington has repeatedly relied on military pressure and threats in the hope of forcing Tehran to change course. Yet such pressure has failed to produce the kind of political outcome the US appears to seek. Rather than weakening Iran decisively, confrontation risks strengthening nationalist sentiment and making compromise more difficult. Military power can destroy infrastructure and impose costs, but it cannot by itself create a sustainable political settlement.
The consequences of this approach are not confined to Iran. Washington’s reported decision to reduce joint military exercises with South Korea because Seoul declined to participate in efforts aimed at pressuring Iran raises wider questions about the coherence of US foreign policy. Linking security arrangements in East Asia to a separate confrontation in the Middle East risks undermining confidence among American allies and creating the impression that established partnerships can be used as instruments of pressure.
There are also concerns over the handling of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding and the continuing disagreement over the meaning of its 60-day provision. Such uncertainty is hardly reassuring at a moment when the region needs clarity, consistency and credible diplomatic channels. Conflicting messages from Washington can make it harder for allies and adversaries alike to assess US intentions and can inadvertently encourage further escalation.
The frustration among key US partners in the Gulf is becoming increasingly apparent. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain have all expressed concern over the continuation of the conflict and its implications for regional stability. These states have the most immediate stake in preventing the Middle East from descending into a broader war. Their economies, energy infrastructure, shipping routes and populations are directly exposed to the consequences of escalation.
At the heart of the wider crisis remains the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Israel’s increasingly assertive regional posture. Israel’s rejection of diplomatic initiatives continues to complicate efforts to establish a sustainable political settlement. The recent condemnation by the foreign ministers of eight Muslim countries, including Pakistan, of Israel’s rejection of the 15-point Gaza roadmap reflects growing regional frustration with the lack of progress towards a just and lasting peace.
The region must therefore begin reconsidering its approach to security. The assumption that stability can be guaranteed indefinitely through dependence on an external power has become increasingly questionable. Trump’s attempt to portray the trilateral Makkah Joint Defence Agreement as potentially directed against Iran should be viewed cautiously, particularly since Tehran itself has welcomed the agreement and indicated that it does not regard the arrangement as an anti-Iran alliance.
The larger lesson is that Middle Eastern states increasingly need to take greater responsibility for their own collective security. Regional countries have common interests that extend beyond their political differences: protecting shipping routes, preventing terrorism, safeguarding energy supplies, avoiding sectarian conflict and ensuring that disputes do not escalate into full-scale wars.
A stronger regional security architecture could help address these challenges. Greater intelligence-sharing, coordinated maritime security, diplomatic mechanisms for resolving disputes and regular consultations among regional powers could reduce dependence on outside military intervention. Such cooperation would not eliminate disagreements, but it could provide the region with mechanisms to manage them without repeatedly turning to war.
The United States and Israel may continue to pursue policies that increase pressure on Iran and reshape the regional balance of power. But their ability to dictate the Middle East’s future will be limited if regional states become more united, strategically independent and capable of managing their own security.
The choice before the region is increasingly clear. It can remain dependent on military alliances and external powers whose priorities may not always coincide with those of their partners, or it can invest in regional cooperation and collective security. If peace is genuinely the objective, the latter is the more sustainable path. The Middle East has endured enough wars, displacement and instability. Its future cannot be secured through another cycle of escalation.
Shafaqna Pakistan
pakistan.shafaqna.com
Note: Shafaqna do not endorse the views expressed in the article
