The Middle East finds itself at a crossroads, facing a fundamental question: how can the region end the protracted war of attrition and establish a comprehensive security framework that reduces tensions, prevents future conflicts, and lays the foundations for lasting peace?
While some place their faith in global powers, such as the United States, China, Russia, and the European Union, to intervene and stabilise the region, the reality is that this is far from likely. While the Middle East’s geostrategic location, energy resources, and wealth make it indispensable in global politics, the US and China appear primarily concerned with protecting their immediate interests, and Russia and the European Union appear focused on salvaging their remaining ones.
Collectively, these powers lack a coherent vision or political framework capable of mitigating the structural challenges that perpetuate cycles of conflict in the Middle East. This points to an undeniable reality: the responsibility for ending the current wars and forging a path towards stability now falls squarely on the region’s regional actors.
If the regional powers are determined to reject the chaotic status quo, they must take proactive steps to reshape the future of the Middle East. The complex interplay of gains and losses and opportunities and risks in the aftermath of the Gaza war may prompt the regional powers to explore the potential of collective security arrangements. Such arrangements could serve as a basis for easing tensions, mitigating conflicts, and opening up prospects for sustainable peace.
The willingness of the regional powers to embrace cooperation will determine whether the Middle East can transcend the cycles of violence and emerge as a more stable and cooperative entity in an increasingly dynamic and volatile global landscape.
Although Israel has emerged as the strategic winner of the current Middle East conflict, its attempt to exercise regional hegemony is doomed to failure and at great cost. To free itself from the illusion of hegemony, Israel must abandon its policies rooted in coercion, unilateral domination, and the denial of Palestinian self-determination. Instead, it must pursue a regional consensus aimed at peaceful settlements, collective security arrangements, and the final demarcation of mutually respectful borders. Without such a necessary strategic review, Israel risks remaining embroiled in an endless conflict that undermines regional peace and its long-term interests.
Iran’s bid for regional hegemony following the Gaza war has ended with heavy losses and a decline in influence in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. The “Axis of Resistance” discourse that Iran has spearheaded for decades has collapsed under the pressures of relentless conflict, destruction, and overwhelming Israeli military superiority, leaving the Islamic Republic increasingly vulnerable and isolated in the Middle East. To overcome these dangers, Iran must rethink its policies, radically change its approach, and seek to build regional consensus.
Egypt, by contrast, has made significant efforts to mitigate regional instability, strengthening cooperation with key partners such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Turkey, and Qatar, while maintaining a cautious diplomatic approach towards Iran and demonstrating great strategic restraint towards Israel. Despite Egypt’s pivotal role as a mediator in efforts to consolidate a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, rebuild Gaza, plan post-war scenarios for managing the Strip’s affairs, and focus regional and global attention on the Palestinian issue, Israel’s continued intransigence calls for regional cooperation with Egyptian efforts.
The visions of Saudi Arabia and the UAE align closely with Egypt’s focus on stability and collective security and also reflect distinct national priorities shaped by their unique geopolitical and strategic objectives. Saudi Arabia’s focus remains on advancing its Vision 2030 modernisation agenda, while protecting its resources from lingering regional tensions in the Gulf and the Levant and conducting a strategic dialogue with the US regarding security guarantees, a peaceful nuclear programme, and regional normalisation efforts, which Riyadh links to the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Saudi Arabia, like Egypt, favours consensus on collective security arrangements and the formulation of a broader framework for regional cooperation to address all these interconnected challenges and achieve lasting peace.
The UAE, for its part, is certainly increasingly concerned about the risks of the collapse of the Syrian regime and the competition between Turkey, Iran, and Israel for regional hegemony. To mitigate these risks, the UAE is exploring ways to cooperate with Saudi Arabia to maintain stability in the Gulf and with Egypt to restore security in the Levant from Palestine to Syria.
Regional powers active in the Middle East therefore share a fundamental interest in establishing a collective security framework that restores security and stability in the arenas of Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. Without such a framework, the cycle of war and conflict will continue and continue to jeopardise the interests of all.
Despite these shared interests, significant obstacles hinder efforts to establish collective security in the Middle East, most notably the reliance of some regional actors on military tools and their frequent interference in the internal affairs of other countries. Such practices undermine trust, exacerbate divisions, and thus make it difficult to build a shared vision for peace.
In this context, Egypt and Saudi Arabia stand out for their current diplomatic efforts, their comprehensive move away from the use of military force, and their desire to replace war and conflict with a collective security framework based on dialogue, de-escalation, and peaceful settlements.
Accordingly, I reiterate my call for Egypt and Saudi Arabia to take the lead in initiating diplomatic and political discussions on establishing a regional security bloc.
Following the example of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), this should be in accordance with the following principles: (1) Non-interference, meaning respect for the sovereignty of states and a commitment not to interfere in their internal affairs; (2) Resolving disputes peacefully through dialogue, negotiation, and consensus-building to resolve tensions and conflicts; (3) Ending militarism, meaning committing to halting direct and proxy military interventions, halting support for armed militias, and refraining from using military force as a tool to achieve political goals; and (4) Supporting the right to self-determination, meaning making efforts to end the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories, dismantle settlements, and lift the blockade to enable the Palestinian people to achieve self-determination within effective frameworks leading to an independent state.
A further principle is: (5) Renewing the cohesion of nation-states by launching initiatives to restore stability to fragmented and collapsed states throughout the Middle East, ending the presence of armed militias and prioritising collective security.
I hope that Cairo and Riyadh will work together to launch such an initiative and call on the regional powers and the rest of the countries in the region to adhere to its principles.
* The writer is a political scientist and former MP. He is currently director of the Middle East Programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 20 March, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: