Middle East in meltdown?

The Middle East is on the brink of a potential regional war following Israel’s preemptive strike against Iran. This military action occurred while high-stakes negotiations between Tehran and Washington were still in progress, leading to an immediate escalation into direct military conflict. This situation poses a threat not only to regional stability but also to the global economy, energy markets, and geopolitical balance.

Israel conducted a covert aerial and cyber operation aimed at key Iranian military targets, including air defence installations and suspected nuclear development sites. This operation, reportedly executed without prior consultation with the US, has surprised the international community. In response, the Iranian leadership characterised the attack as “a declaration of war.” Despite the initial shock, Iran’s retaliation was both swift and forceful, exceeding the expectations of Israeli and Western intelligence. Within 18 hours of the initial assault, Iran launched an extensive barrage of over 400 ballistic and cruise missiles, including its advanced hypersonic weapons, targeting Israeli command centres, military facilities and civilian areas across Tel Aviv and central Israel.

Israel’s renowned Iron Dome missile defence system, which was previously esteemed as a cornerstone of its national security apparatus, experienced significant failure in light of Iran’s sophisticated saturation attack. Overwhelmed by the rapid volume of incoming projectiles, a considerable number of missiles successfully struck their designated targets, resulting in a sharp increase in civilian casualties and extensive damage to major urban areas.

Adding to the complexity of the crisis is a substantial intelligence failure. According to leaked evaluations, Israeli intelligence significantly miscalculated Iran’s retaliatory capabilities and misjudged the prevailing geopolitical landscape. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, now facing intense domestic and international scrutiny, has urgently requested direct US military intervention to “rescue Israel from certain defeat”. This conflict, many analysts argue, was provoked by actions that received tacit approval from certain American hawks in Washington, DC.

The global response to the current crisis has been rapid, polarised and indicative of underlying geopolitical tensions. Russia, China, Pakistan, Turkey and a significant portion of the Muslim world have publicly expressed their support for Iran, invoking the right to self-defence as delineated in Article 51 of the UN Charter. Within hours, aircraft carrying military supplies, medical provisions and technical personnel commenced operations in Tehran. Conversely, Western nations exhibit a marked division in their approach. European countries, while denouncing the violence, have refrained from providing unequivocal support to Israel.

The US, historically aligned with Israel, finds itself in a precarious position amid increasing domestic demands to avert further military entanglements in the Middle East. Following two decades of extensive military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US now confronts the prospect of yet another military involvement in a region that has absorbed over $12 trillion in stabilisation efforts, yielding minimal results.

Since 2003, over 7,000 American service members have lost their lives in the Middle East, with approximately 50,000 more sustaining injuries. Simultaneously, the US grapples with unprecedented inflation, deteriorating infrastructure, an annual death toll of 100,000 due to fentanyl, and a staggering national debt of $37 trillion. Public confidence in foreign military interventions is at an unprecedented low.

The ‘America First’ policies adopted by Trump geared towards concluding foreign conflicts and prioritising domestic security continue to enjoy considerable public support, with 77 million Americans advocating for a foreign policy characterised by restraint and realism, as well as a renewed focus on national concerns. The resurgence of this doctrine has been exacerbated by the prevailing chaos on the international stage.

The potential consequences of the ongoing conflict bear the risk of becoming catastrophic. Iran has issued warnings that any Israeli military action targeting Kharg Island, responsible for 90 per cent of Iran’s oil exports, or the critical terminal at Bandar Abbas, would prompt an immediate closure of the Strait of Hormuz. This vital maritime passage handles nearly 20 per cent of the world’s daily oil shipments.

Such a closure would likely lead to a dramatic increase in global oil prices. Analysts project that gasoline prices in the US could surge to $7 per gallon almost instantaneously. Supply chains would be severely disrupted, resulting in a rapid escalation of inflation. Trucking operations would be compromised, leading to shortages on grocery store shelves. The economic fallout would affect every working family in the West. This predicament raises the question: to what end does the US risk involvement in a conflict perceived by many citizens as another unwinnable military engagement?

The US currently maintains a troop presence of nearly 40,000 personnel across the Persian Gulf, specifically in Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Kuwait. These forces are now confronted with significant risks. Iranian drones, such as the Shahed-136, which cost approximately $20,000 each, possess the capability to overwhelm American military bases. In contrast, each American Patriot interceptor missile costs upwards of $4 million. This disparity presents a clear challenge: both militarily and economically, the situation is becoming increasingly unsustainable.

This imbalance portends significant potential consequences. The prolonged involvement of the US in the region may result in the depletion of resources, a reduction in missile stockpiles, and an increase in casualties among American service members. The likelihood of the conflict escalating to a nuclear confrontation has also transitioned from being merely speculative to a pressing concern.

As the architect of much of the post-2003 Middle Eastern landscape, the US now confronts a dilemma of its own making. For decades, successive administrations have provided unconditional support for Israel while engaging in regime change initiatives throughout the region, from Iraq to Libya. This legacy now poses the risk of drawing Washington into a direct confrontation with Iran, a nuclear-capable nation supported by significant global powers.

Calls for restraint are intensifying in Washington; however, the American national security establishment appears to be divided on the issue. Defence officials caution against potential Iranian reprisals targeting US military installations and oil interests in the Gulf. Concurrently, American naval forces have been repositioned closer to the Strait of Hormuz, raising concerns regarding the possibility of accidental escalation.

China has emerged as a significant critic and challenger to US foreign policy within this tumultuous environment. In a pointed statement at the United Nations General Assembly, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi asserted that "the international community can no longer be held hostage to one nation’s reckless foreign policy”. He remarked, “The world can and will progress without the US if it continues to prioritise warfare over peace and coercion over cooperation”.

China has proposed hosting an emergency international peace summit in Beijing, along with a new multilateral peace framework that effectively excludes the US. With support from Russia, Iran, Brazil, South Africa, and numerous countries in the Global South, this proposal is gaining momentum, posing a threat to the US’s historical dominance in the region. This situation may signify the onset of a global realignment, wherein alternative power centres challenge the US-led world order. The message from China is clear: should Washington persist in its trajectory of perpetual conflict, the rest of the world will independently pursue its own economic, diplomatic, and strategic pathways.

Should there be any hope for de-escalation, it hinges on prompt diplomatic initiatives. To avert a complete regional crisis, the US must urgently spearhead a global appeal for an immediate ceasefire, clearly indicating that it does not endorse the destruction of any state in the region. All military assistance provided by the US to Israel should be contingent upon a full withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank, alongside the cessation of assaults on Palestinian civilians.

Until Israel adheres to humanitarian and legal standards, the US should suspend its annual military aid of $3.8 billion. American taxpayers should not be expected to finance ongoing warfare. It is imperative to deploy armed forces from neutral nations to oversee peacekeeping operations in Gaza and the West Bank, ensuring the protection of civilians and the provision of humanitarian aid.

This situation represents a pivotal moment for American foreign policy. Over the past two decades, America's involvement in the Middle East has resulted in the loss of thousands of American lives and expenditures in the trillions, leading to significant repercussions. Yet, those responsible for these strategic missteps continue to guide current policies, potentially repeating past errors. The need for a revised foreign policy doctrine is evident. Such a doctrine should prioritise human lives, security and prosperity over ideological aspirations or foreign entanglements.

The writer is a trade facilitation expert, working with the federal government of Pakistan.