https://www.
~~ recommended by emil karpo ~~
When Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan signed the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement on August 7, they created a new collective-security mechanism at the center of a region already shaken by war. A day later, Turkey’s foreign minister compared its mutual-defense commitment to NATO’s Article 5, while stressing that the pact was not directed at Iran or any other specific state. The agreement does not by itself create a new regional order. But it is a striking sign that major Middle Eastern powers increasingly want security arrangements they can shape themselves rather than relying exclusively on external patrons.
That development captures the deeper consequence of Donald Trump’s decision to enter the war against Iran. Strategists often imagine international politics as a chessboard, where actors calculate moves, anticipate responses, and maintain control over outcomes. Yet Middle Eastern politics often resembles backgammon more than chess: rational choices coexist with chance, shocks, and external constraints. A player may design the best possible strategy, but the roll of the dice can still redirect the game. Trump’s intervention was, in this sense, the moment when the dice were cast: a point of no return, whose political consequences could not be fully controlled.
The Regional Costs of Escalation
The United States and Israel launched their war against Iran on February 28. Their military superiority produced enormous destructive power, but not control over the wider political effects. Iran retaliated against US facilities and targets across the Gulf and disrupted traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas normally passes. Gulf economies, aviation, energy infrastructure, and commercial shipping were drawn directly into the conflict. What was intended as pressure on Tehran became a regional shock whose costs spread far beyond Iran itself.
For years, US strategy portrayed Iran as the principal source of instability in the Middle East. A US-backed regional order was presented as the path to integration and development, while Iran and its armed partners were treated as the main obstacle. Whatever the limits of that narrative, it shaped a simple policy logic: weaken Iran, strengthen US partners, and the region becomes more stable.
The Iran war has made that proposition harder to sustain.
A new regional normal doesn’t suggest Gulf governments are suddenly aligning with Iran or turning uniformly against Washington and Israel. Iranian attacks have generated intense anger, and the United Arab Emirates responded by deepening security ties with the United States and Israel. Yet the conflict also exposed the vulnerability of states that did not choose the war though were forced to absorb its economic and security costs. The result is therefore less a break with Washington than a search for insurance: Gulf governments are diversifying their security relationships rather than abandoning the United States.
From a Single Threat to Multiple Risks
This strategic reassessment actually predates the Iran war. The continuation of the Gaza conflict, Israel’s military campaigns in Lebanon and Syria, and especially the September 2025 Israeli strike in Doha forced Arab governments to confront another source of risk, that Israeli military power could cross Arab borders without an effective regional mechanism to restrain it. Iran remained a major threat, but it was no longer the only actor around which regional security calculations revolved. The important change is a movement away from a single-threat model toward concern with unconstrained power—whether Iranian, Israeli, or, in some circumstances, geopolitical blowback from Washington’s foreign policy.
Stephen Walt’s balance-of-threat theory offers a useful framework for understanding this shift. In The Origins of Alliances, Walt argues that states do not simply balance against material power; they balance against perceived threats, shaped by capabilities, proximity, and intentions. That distinction matters in today’s Middle East. A government may rely on Washington against Iranian missiles, oppose an Israeli strike on an Arab capital, and simultaneously seek defense arrangements with other regional powers. These positions are not necessarily mutually exclusive or contradictory. They are different forms of balancing and hedging against different threats.
A New Balance Takes Shape in the Middle East
The emerging regional architecture reflects Walt’s logic. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan have now formalized a collective-defense mechanism, and Turkish officials have identified Egypt as a possible future participant. Pakistan and Qatar also helped mediate the June Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding between Washington and Tehran, a 14-point interim agreement intended to halt the war and open a negotiating window. Oman, meanwhile, has remained central to talks over the future administration and reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. These arrangements do not yet amount to a coherent bloc, but they show regional states acting not only as clients of great powers, but also as security providers, diplomatic intermediaries, and rule-makers in their own right.
China stands to gain from a more fluid regional order. Beijing’s 2023 role in restoring Saudi-Iranian diplomatic relations demonstrated that it could contribute to crisis management and de-escalation without assuming the type of military umbrella associated with the United States. The war has since encouraged some Gulf states to test how much political influence Beijing is willing to exercise with Tehran. For regional governments, China is therefore less a complete alternative to Washington than an additional option: a major economic partner, diplomatic broker, and potential counterweight in a diversified foreign policy.
The ideological dimension of US foreign policy also helps explain why China is viewed differently, although it should not be overstated. US support for Israel rests on strategic cooperation and domestic politics as well as longstanding ideological and religious currents, including strong pro-Israel commitments among many evangelical Christians. China approaches Israel more conventionally—as one important state among several with which Beijing seeks economic and diplomatic relations. That difference does not make China neutral, but it can make Chinese engagement attractive to governments seeking relationships less conditioned by the political commitments that shape US policy.
Toward a Fluid Regional Order
Trump’s decision may therefore have accelerated a security reordering that was already underway. One pole is likely to remain centered on the United States, Israel, and partners such as the UAE. Alongside it, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, and potentially Egypt are building mechanisms for greater regional autonomy. Qatar and Oman retain diplomatic niches, while Iran may find room for selective state-to-state accommodation if it relies less on non-state armed partners. China gains influence wherever governments seek to reduce exclusive dependence on Washington. These alignments will overlap rather than form two disciplined camps, but the direction of change is visible.
The strongest objection is that the ideological and strategic differences among Turkey, conservative Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, and Shiite Iran are too deep to sustain meaningful cooperation. Yet Walt’s argument suggests why this is not necessarily decisive. States facing sufficiently strong shared vulnerabilities can cooperate across ideological divides without becoming permanent allies. Their coordination may remain limited and transactional, but even that can alter the regional balance.
Ultimately, international politics in the Middle East still resembles backgammon more than chess. Actors can design strategies, but they cannot guarantee outcomes. Trump may have intended military force to weaken Iran and reinforce an US-led order. Instead, the war has accelerated a search for autonomous security arrangements, diversified partnerships, and new forms of regional balancing. The casting of the dice was not merely a single decision; it opened a process whose consequences are unfolding beyond the intentions of those who began it. The Middle East is now reorganizing around those consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment