The writer is an economist, an anchor, and a geopolitical analyst
and the President of the All Pakistan Private Schools’ Federation
president@Pakistanprivateschools.com
n the Middle East, Israeli jets carried out dozens of strikes against nuclear and military sites in Iran. Iran withdraws from scheduled nuclear talks with the United States. Implications for the Region and Beyond The recent strikes by Israel on Iran’s nuclear facilities have far-reaching implications that extend beyond the Middle East. A key concern is the potential escalation of violence, which could destabilise the entire region and impact global energy markets. The ripple effects might be felt in neighboring countries, including increased refugee crises and strain on existing resources. Israel’s attack on Iran marks a significant escalation in their long-standing conflict, potentially opening a new chapter in Middle East geopolitics. This development raises questions about the future of regional stability and the potential for further conflict. The attack may also have implications for Iran’s relationships with its neighbours and its role in regional conflicts. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it “a targeted military operation to roll back the Iranian threat to Israel’s very survival,” adding that the operation would continue “for as many days at it takes to remove this threat.” Israel’s stunning, multifaceted strike against Iranian nuclear, ballistic missile, and regime leadership targets has thrown much into chaos: Iran’s ability to project power, US President Donald Trump’s nuclear diplomacy, and US-Israel regional coordination. Israel’s strikes lay bare the depth of Iran’s miscalculation following Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack against Israel. Tehran’s Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah, and its key regional ally, the Assad regime in Syria, lie in ruins. Iran’s own state-to-state attacks against Israel in April and October 2024 produced little damage, while Iran suffered significantly from Israel’s October response. Now, with that taboo also in the dustbin of history, Israel demonstrated its full penetration of Iran and its ability to wreak havoc across the Iranian system. Iran has never looked weaker, and its ability to respond meaningfully will be tested. Israel’s closest ally was quick to distance itself from the strike, with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying that the United States was “not involved.” As reports of the damage rolled in, the commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Hossein Salami, was listed among those killed in the strikes. Israel’s operation came as US-Iranian negotiations on Iran’s advancing nuclear program seemed to have reached an impasse, and just after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) concluded that Tehran was in breach of its nuclear nonproliferation obligations. So, how might Iranian forces respond? What will this mean for Israel, Iran’s nuclear program, the US-Israel relationship, and a region already experiencing great upheaval? But the story does not end here. Israel pledges additional attacks, but Iran will now be supremely motivated to sprint to a nuclear breakout at hardened, underground facilities. The United States will surely assist Israel with defence against any Iranian retaliation. But Trump’s dream of a diplomatic resolution that ends Iranian enrichment appears dead. More likely, the US president will be faced with a decision on whether to use the United States’ unique capabilities to destroy Tehran’s underground nuclear facilities and prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon. The decision will split his advisers and political base, amid accusations, and perhaps his own misgivings, that Netanyahu is attempting to drag him into war. The repercussions on trust and coordination in the US-Israel relationship could be long-lasting, with implications for future rounds of conflict with Iran, negotiations on the next US-Israel military assistance agreement, and the wind-down to the war in Gaza. An ‘America first’ president, and an ‘Israel first’ prime minister, who have each made fateful decisions with minimal consultation or taking each other’s interests into account, will coexist uneasily for as many more months and years as they both serve. The question now is not whether, but how, the United States will be dragged into a war it doesn’t want, and that Gulf states fear. Iranian retaliation directly against Israel will not translate into non-involvement from Washington, as Israel will then be drawn into a spiral of retaliation and counter-retaliation, requiring US military supplies, intelligence support, and diplomatic cover. So far, there is no evidence that Gulf states looked the other way as Israel used their airspace for the attacks, and this won’t be very difficult to confirm or deny. Then the question becomes how to protect US troops in the region and how to come to the aid of Gulf friends. Given the Trump administration’s close ties to the Gulf, as well as Trump’s personal admiration for certain Gulf leaders, the region will expect the US administration to provide any help they request. Israel’s attack on Iranian nuclear and military facilities was in direct defiance of Trump’s call for caution and negotiation. The United States has been seeking a negotiated solution—one that was not supported by Netanyahu’s government. The Israeli preemptive strike is likely to disrupt Iran’s immediate capacity to develop a nuclear weapons program. However, it remains uncertain whether such an action will effectively deter the Iranian regime’s nuclear ambitions. The Iranian regime appears to have been given two choices: abandon its nuclear aspirations or face a lack of intervention from the Trump administration if Israel decides to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. Israel may have advocated for an earlier attack window, while the United States likely attempted to apply diplomatic measures. When diplomacy failed, the United States understandably announced an ordered departure for US embassy staff in Baghdad, while other US diplomatic posts in the region were placed on standby for ordered departure. The United States has been seeking a negotiated solution—one that was not supported by Netanyahu’s government. As for the question of likely retaliation, Iran has few good options. Its Hamas and Hezbollah proxies are degraded, and Israel’s Iron Dome can demonstrably defend against missile and drone attacks. Iran is also afraid of a wider war, though those fears are misguided. This will de-escalate quickly, like Trump’s strike on Qassem Soleimani during his first term. The key questions are: What will happen in the coming weeks and months? Does Iran rebuild? Does Israel mow the grass? Or does Iran decide that it is not worth it to spend decades, and billions of dollars, and only have a pile of rubble to show for it?
The ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran has far-reaching implications that extend beyond the Middle East, potentially reshaping the global order. The Israel-Iran conflict has already led to a strategic realignment in global politics. This isn’t just a war between two nations; it’s a clash between the West, represented by the US, UK, EU, G-7, and the East, led by Russia, China, Iran, with Pakistan possibly drawn into the fray. The conflict’s impact will be felt across the Middle East, with potential proxy conflicts intensifying in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen.
There were only three possible outcomes in the decades-long battle over Tehran’s nuclear aspirations: allow Iran to go nuclear, negotiate a permanent deal, or military action. A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable. A permanent deal is highly unlikely, as former US President Barack Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal proved. So, military action is the only viable option left. There are three key facilities for Iran’s nuclear opponents to destroy: Isfahan, Natanz, and Fordow. A US strike would have been more effective as it could have meaningfully degraded all of Iran’s key nuclear facilities, while Israel can destroy the above-ground facilities. The underground facilities are difficult, but don’t count Israel out. No one would have predicted it could take out Hezbollah with walkie talkies last year. Did Israel conduct commando raids or other creative attacks on the underground facilities? If so, this will meaningfully set back Iran’s nuclear program. Israel’s attack on Iranian nuclear and military facilities was in direct defiance of Trump’s call for caution and negotiation. Regardless of when the Trump administration became aware that the Israeli strike was imminent, questions remain: Will this unilateral action by Israel sufficiently deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions? How might the regime in Tehran respond? Israeli strikes on Iran risk provoking a response from Yemen’s Houthis and potentially upending last month’s bilateral cease-fire agreement between the United States and the Houthis. Moreover, the Houthis have been playing a more prominent role in Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” since the October 7 attacks, particularly as other proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah faced leadership losses and setbacks. For the group, renewed confrontation could be an opportunity to reinforce its position within Iran’s network of allies and proxies and claim a major propaganda win, even if it means the end of the cease-fire with the United States. While the Trump administration’s “Operation Rough Rider” imposed meaningful damage on the group, the Houthis have proven their resilience and ability to adapt in the face of continued strikes. They may also calculate that the Trump administration’s decision to pursue a cease-fire is a sign of limited appetite to re-engage in Yemen, especially given that “Operation Rough Rider” cost more than one billion dollars in a month and failed to degrade the Houthis, who have continued strikes on Israeli territory. How will the United States and the Gulf states seek to contain further conflict in the region? What is immediately clear is that economic and security conditions in the Middle East have become more volatile. Just as corners of the Middle East were experiencing some semblance of stability, such as in parts of Syria and Lebanon, this latest escalation has the potential to reverse the region’s recent fragile gains. Beyond the immediate political and military consequences, the most profound impacts will be felt by civilians, particularly those already in humanitarian crises. A prolonged disruption in regional commerce and air travel, alongside rising fuel and food prices, will hit displaced populations, host communities, and those living under the poverty line the hardest. In Syria, where around 90 per cent of the population lives in poverty, any shock to commodity prices or aid delivery will be devastating. In Lebanon and Jordan, already overstretched in hosting among the world’s highest refugee populations, the economic fallout may further strain public services and deepen social tensions. The United States has a responsibility to act in ways that reduce harm, avoid a full-scale regional war, and protect civilian lives. That means using its leverage not to escalate but to contain the conflict, pressing all parties, including allies, to prioritize diplomacy over devastation. Failure to do so will not only ignite another war in the region, but it will also exacerbate existing circumstances for fragile communities across the region. Crucially, while the Strait of Hormuz has long symbolised energy risk, it was—and remains—unlikely to be closed. Iran needs the revenue. This gave the Trump administration confidence to confront Iran without fear of major energy disruption. The Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure may be reverberating across global energy markets, but the tremors are far more restrained than the stakes might have suggested. Brent crude rose more than 10 percent, yet the per-barrel price remains below eighty dollars, well short of crisis levels. The moment underscores how strategic foresight in energy policy can shape the contours of geopolitical risk in the world’s most volatile corridors. While headlines are focused on missiles and centrifuges, a quieter story lies in the market conditions that made such a strike politically viable. Israel’s actions benefited from the political leeway made possible by Trump’s efforts to “bring down the cost of oil.” It’s not to say the strike wouldn’t have happened otherwise, but—as shown during Trump’s first term—when energy markets can shield consumers from the worst effects of a supply disruption, policymakers have far greater latitude to escalate. In 2018, Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal and impose “maximum pressure” was rooted in a belief that oil markets could absorb the shock. Internal White House analysis forecasted only modest price increases, with US production gains and global spare capacity acting as a buffer. The start of what is likely to be a multi-day series of Israeli strikes across Iran is an unprecedented exchange in a long history of attacks between the regional rivals. Most importantly, Israel is going alone against Iran. In previous instances, the United States and Israel maintained regular communication and a coordinated defence posture. This coordination was spectacularly successful in the defence of Israel, including in both April and October 2024, which saw unbelievably low casualties and damage in light of the hundreds of missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles fired against Israel. This time is different. Trump’s pursuit of Iran nuclear negotiations has created scepticism in Israel. These moves came alongside Trump’s avoidance of an Israel stop during his recent visit to the Middle East, as well as Netanyahu’s Oval Office visit in April, where he left empty-handed on both tariff relief and Iran. Finally, Iran will now feel obligated to respond. Depending on the degree of damage that Israel has inflicted, Iran may respond in a way that broadens the conflict and creates collateral damage elsewhere in the region. How this will end is unknown, but as has been the case in the past, a speedier ending is likely to depend on the United States. The United States wants Arab states to turn on missile and drone detection and mitigation systems and look out for munitions launched from Iran toward Israel, while Iran wants Arab states to consider looking the other way if it stages retaliatory strikes that cross Arab airspace. Arab states have a logical reason to rebuff Iran’s request. Munitions flown into a country’s airspace without coordination with its capital are violations of sovereignty and a threat to its people and infrastructure. Among the many lessons to be drawn from this operation is one about the importance of speaking truth to power. Israel’s recent strikes on Iran mark another instance of its Begin Doctrine in action. This policy, named after former Prime Minister Menachem Begin, involves pre-emptive strikes against nuclear facilities and weapons of mass destruction. First implemented in 1981 with Operation Opera, Israel targeted Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad without US approval. Despite fears of escalation, the attack didn’t provoke a significant response from Iraq, which was already engaged in a war with Iran. Israel applied the doctrine again in 2007, covertly destroying Syria’s Al-Kibar reactor. The operation wasn’t publicly acknowledged until 2018, and Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad denied the site’s existence to avoid pressure to retaliate. Now, Israel seems to be invoking the doctrine for the third time, targeting Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile infrastructure without US backing. However, unlike previous instances, Iran is expected to retaliate, potentially with greater intensity, especially if its regional proxies join the response. The situation is critical, with US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff scheduled to meet with Iranian negotiators in Muscat this weekend. The outlook for a deal appears grim following the strikes, and a collapse in negotiations could lead to an unprecedented escalation in the region. The strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities have the potential to reshape the Middle East in profound ways. The implications for regional stability, security, and diplomacy will be significant and could have far-reaching consequences for the future of the region. The ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran has far-reaching implications that extend beyond the Middle East, potentially reshaping the global order. The Israel-Iran conflict has already led to a strategic realignment in global politics. This isn’t just a war between two nations; it’s a clash between the West, represented by the US, UK, EU, G-7, and the East, led by Russia, China, Iran, with Pakistan possibly drawn into the fray. The conflict’s impact will be felt across the Middle East, with potential proxy conflicts intensifying in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. Furthermore, the influence of BRICS+ may deepen, potentially altering the global economic and political landscape. As the conflict unfolds, one thing is clear: the global order is shifting. The question is, what will the new order look like? Will it be characterised by increased polarisation, proxy conflicts, and a new arms race, or will diplomacy prevail, leading to a more stable and peaceful region? The world watches with bated breath as these events unfold, knowing that the consequences will be far-reaching and profound.