While the future of any region is typically shaped by a complex interplay of political, economic, military, and technological factors, the fate of the Middle East today hinges decisively on one overriding variable: the consequences of the war between Israel and Iran.
This war, which erupted on 13 June 2025 and came to an abrupt halt with US President Donald Trump’s announcement of a ceasefire agreement on 24 June, is poised to profoundly impact the regional landscape, the balance of power among its key actors, and the nature of its international alignments.
The ceasefire was declared just two days after a major US military operation targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities, an operation considered the most extensive of its kind in decades. That strike was followed by a day of intense, reciprocal attacks between Israel and Iran. Israel expanded its targets to include airports, Revolutionary Guard and Basij facilities, prisons, and economic and educational institutions, effectively achieving near-total dominance over Iranian airspace.
In response, Iran launched missile attacks on the Israeli cities of Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Beersheba, as well as on the US Al-Udeid Airbase in Qatar, an attack it had pre-announced to the US, thereby minimising its operational impact and earning a public note of appreciation from Trump.
As of now, the full extent of the damage to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure remains unclear, as does the durability of the ceasefire and the content of the agreement between the parties. Also uncertain are the political arrangements and negotiations that may follow. Nonetheless, one question looms large: What does the future hold for the Middle East, and how will recent developments reshape the distribution of power in the region?
GEOPOLITICAL REALIGNMENTS: Geopolitically, multiple scenarios could unfold. Israel may seek to dominate the regional order and reshape it according to its own strategic vision. Alternatively, a new balance of power may emerge between Israel and Iran, brokered under US leadership, and possibly in coordination with Turkey.
A third scenario may see a group of Arab states, perhaps alongside Turkey, pursuing a regional consensus that transcends the binary of Israeli-Iranian rivalry. The actual trajectory will depend heavily on how the regional powers behave in the coming months.
The war revealed a stark asymmetry in capabilities: Israel, with US backing, confronted an isolated Iran. This asymmetry will shape the strategies of all the parties moving forward.
Israel is likely to leverage the outcome of the conflict to advance its core strategic goals. Chief among these are dismantling Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes, creating conditions conducive to regime change in Tehran, and accelerating its broader vision of reshaping the Middle East. This vision, articulated repeatedly by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the past two years, seeks to eliminate any credible military threats to Israel from neighbouring countries such as Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon.
Additionally, Israel may intensify efforts to forcibly transfer Palestinians from their land and pressure neighbouring states to absorb them, thereby laying the groundwork for the liquidation of the Palestinian issue. Israel might also increase its support for ethnic and sectarian minorities in the Arab countries in a bid to weaken national cohesion and sow internal discord.
Such policies are expected to perpetuate instability and conflict. Israel will closely monitor any Iranian efforts to revive its nuclear or missile programmes or to re-activate its regional proxies. These actions are likely to increase regional scepticism about Israel’s intentions and ambitions.
In response, a cluster of Arab states with shared concerns may move towards greater coordination to form a counterweight to Israeli expansionism, emerging as an influential bloc in the regional balance of power.
Although Tehran refused Trump’s call for an “unconditional surrender” and demonstrated its ability to strike Israeli cities even in the final days of the conflict, it was never in a position to sustain an open military confrontation with the United States. Iranian leaders ultimately concluded that the national interest required an end to hostilities.
In the aftermath, Iran remains a wounded and strategically weakened regional power, particularly following the degradation of its regional network of proxies. Tehran will likely focus on rebuilding its defensive infrastructure and restoring its military capacity. It may well conclude, drawing parallels with North Korea, that possessing a nuclear deterrent is the only guarantee of long-term security.
Until such a capability is within reach, Iran is expected to adopt asymmetric tactics in its ongoing confrontation with Israel. Tehran also hopes that negotiations with Washington will result in the easing of economic sanctions or the unfreezing of Iranian assets abroad, measures that would offer the beleaguered Iranian economy some breathing room and allow for increased oil exports.
However, if Iran agrees to halt uranium enrichment on its soil as a precondition for sanctions relief, and if the Iranian opposition uses the revelation that Tehran had informed the US in advance of the Al-Udeid attack, public opinion may turn against the government. Such a backlash could strengthen hardline factions in the next round of elections.
The United States has reaffirmed its status as the sole international actor capable of shaping the trajectory of conflicts in the Middle East. Compared to the relatively marginal roles of Russia and China, Washington has demonstrated its ability to both project force and broker outcomes aligned with its strategic interests.
It is likely to press Iran on contentious issues such as uranium enrichment and the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in inspections, offering economic and financial incentives in exchange for concessions. This approach reinforces Washington’s preference for transactional diplomacy in managing regional crises.
The Arab governments unanimously condemned Iran’s missile strike on Qatar, viewing it as a violation of sovereignty and a dangerous precedent. This incident revived long-standing concerns in Arab capitals about Iran’s willingness to use military force, or its regional influence, to interfere in Arab affairs.
At the same time, many Arab countries also condemned Israel’s initial attack on Iranian territory, characterising it as an unjustified aggression. Throughout the conflict, the Arab states consistently called for de-escalation, a ceasefire, and a return to negotiations.
The announcement of a ceasefire between Iran and Israel was broadly welcomed across the Arab world and seen as a vital step to halt destruction and prevent further regional destabilisation. Concerns persist, however, that Islamist extremist groups might exploit the volatile regional environment to propagate violent ideologies, undermining political stability.
OUTLOOK FOR THE REGION: These developments paint a troubling picture for the Middle East’s short-term future.
Both Israel and Iran have declared victory and held public rallies celebrating their respective “achievements.” Belligerent rhetoric continues to dominate the discourse, exacerbating mutual distrust and reinforcing sources of instability. Israel’s perception of having “won” the war may embolden it to press for further gains, heightening tensions with Iran and other regional actors.
In this volatile environment, the role of Trump and his negotiating team will be critical. Their ability to manage the post-war diplomacy with balance and restraint will determine whether the ceasefire evolves into a broader regional framework. Arab states aligned with Washington may prove instrumental in supporting this effort.
The Israel-Iran ceasefire may also catalyse momentum towards a similar agreement to end hostilities in Gaza. Such a step could form the basis for renewed efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which remains a core source of regional instability.
As the late Henry Kissinger, US secretary of the state in the 1970s, once observed, the Middle East remains the world’s most enduring geopolitical cauldron, home to deeply rooted, protracted social conflicts that have defied resolution for decades. Since the end of World War II, the region has been defined more by conflict than by peace. What is new today is not the persistence of instability, but the scale of material and human losses and the presence of states that are now investing seriously in peace and development.
In conclusion, it may be time to revisit the question of establishing a regional collective security architecture, one that includes confidence-building mechanisms, addresses the root causes of chronic conflict, and lays the foundation for long-term stability.
The writer is a professor of political science at Cairo University. This article is published in collaboration with the Future Centre for Advanced Research and Studies.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 3 July, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: