As the episode of deadly interactions between Israel and Iran continues to multiply, the enigma of nuclear politics in the Middle East, the coercive manner in which these engagements have occurred, will now create a situation too alarming and escalatory to handle. The previous crisis pattern between the two sides has stirred quite a few questions as they continue to add political points to their scorecards to avert potential collapse or internal implosion of their unpopular regimes.

Tel Aviv engages Tehran in a cleverly pinned provocative act of flaming crisis instability in the volatile region.

With the scale of conflict spiraling out of control, the advancements on the escalation ladder remain optimally low, as we speak. Such a politically ignited atmosphere in the region halts every regional player from actively engaging in the crisis as regional stability fractures, and escalation dominance continues to act in an amplified and unpredictable manner.

For a long time, limiting the crisis to traditional narrative projection, nuclear signaling, and strategic coercion has offered a threat appraisal or a normative pattern of escalatory trends for the West to gauge the gravity of conflicts offered by the Middle East. However, the reality now operates grimly as Tel Aviv engages Tehran in a cleverly pinned provocative act of flaming crisis instability in the volatile region, further reinforcing the preventive doctrine of the West against Iran.

Even if Tehran adeptly escapes domestic instability, international pressure, and botched mediation practices, the collective understanding of the existence of security dilemmas remains a major point of contention and concern for the region. With the Trump administration acting as a psychological barrier to ably complicate normative conflict understanding in Tehran, the regime stands on an off-balanced pedestal and continues to feel the pressure of a psychologically constructed legitimacy crisis to say the least.

The region is now stuck in a strategic limbo and the West continues to fear this significant rise in nuclear awakening in the Middle East. If the situation does not rest with a settlement or comply with the cloaked war objectives of a manufactured regime collapse or total ramp-off from nuclear objectives in Tehran, then a diplomatic quagmire would be inevitable. Tel Aviv’s act of pre-emptively targeting Iran has caused the situation to further heighten up as all regional rivals are waiting for a settlement to not only end Tehran’s regional dominance and nuclear latency but curtail Israel’s aggression in the region.

The illusion of choice offered by the West to states in the Middle East is a diplomatic façade.

As the idea of acquiring nuclear weapons in the region is not only about global prestige, geopolitical muscling, or regional dominance, the deterrence posture of the entire Middle East struggles to clamp on the nuclear tightrope as a cornered regime seems to aptly subjugate global security. The battle of nuclear latency versus global smugness of the West now wiggles at its place with nuclear dialogues becoming a distant reality and strategic anxiety persisting in a diplomatically botched environment.

The continuous warmongering attitude of Washington has intensified the battle of narratives and further pushed Tehran to stay firm over its nuclear objectives, pushing other actors to swing the strategic pendulum and acquire something more than just modern weapon systems. One way or the other, the Middle East has limited choices and a hostile political climate which continues to decimate its ability to grip the foothold of two politically and ideologically divergent aggressors.

As states have followed a constant pattern of nuclearization to end security dilemmas created by their adversaries, the West could not counter this cyclical argument of states that cite national security threats as an impetus to nuclear activation. The West remains cognizant of the bleak realities that Middle East holds and how its political spectrum has remained significantly transitory in nature, but the cost of triggering a cascading effect can fracture global security in a manner hitherto undreamt of, if nothing else.

Ideological rifts, proxy conflicts, and security dilemmas have driven massive trust deficits, and with an increased dependency on western aids in the region, the patronizing behavior of the West grips tightly. Continuation of this practice has erased objectives related to doctrinal readjustments or potential upgradation of individual warfighting maneuvers and diplomatic practices. With a looming nuclear cascading effect in the region, external forces that want to erase their adversary’s foothold from the region will invite a havoc of increased nuclear upgradations by fueling opposite power projectors from the entire MENA (Middle East and North Africa).

The illusion of choice offered by the West to states in the Middle East is a diplomatic façade which persists in the collective understanding of regional actors regarding predetermined pathways of strategic hedging and nuclear objectives. As Tehran continues to enhance its strategic partnerships with Beijing and Moscow against the West, it resets the clocks for both Western and Arab world. It appears that Middle East is entering into a recurrent pattern of standstill haggling with no cogent justification models of the West that Tehran has either been sidelined or weakened by their clever moves.

With a looming nuclear cascading effect, the region invites havoc through increased nuclear upgradations.

With each regional friction between adversaries in the Middle East, the region moves one or two players, particularly Iran and Israel to a different geopolitical sphere while other states focus on recalibrating their policies and diplomatic proximities with the West. This also pushes different regimes to enter in a desperate cycle of policy juggling that encircles their political legitimacy, triggering their historical susceptibility to civil unrests, coups, or proxy groups. Any regime that completes the nuclear cycle of weaponization and falls into a political crisis either by global pressure or terrorist groups can miscalculate its strategic choices and create a zone of existential crises, not only for the region but also for the entire nuclear proliferation regime.

The maritime interests of the West are mostly linked with the trade potentialities of the Middle East, its strait of Hormoz and Suez Canal act as global trade arteries, holding utmost geographic and strategic importance. With a region densely clamped by nuclear weapons, or conflicts with zero deterrent alternatives, global trade routes and maritime chokepoints will invite hard bargaining chips to reinvigorate the region. It will reduce financial luggage and build mutual diplomatic objectives rotating around collective interests of both the West and Middle East, if strategic coherence maintains its ground.

With an absence of arms control culture in the region, states in the Middle East have no previous interactions or diplomatic understanding of alliance building, coalitions, or mutual doctrinal objectives for similar deconfliction mechanisms through hotline diplomatic procedures. With that being said, escalation dominance remains ignited, yet transitory with minor provocations or spirals leading to an intense political behavior from all sides with no concept of crisis stability or management of nuclear brinkmanship if states opt for nuclearization.

Escalation dominance remains ignited, yet transitory, with no concept of crisis stability or nuclear brinkmanship management.

This geopolitical matrix of Middle East remains as one of the most complex studies in nuclear discourses as doctrinal deviations and warmongering practices to outmaneuver adversaries undermine the risk of triggering large-scale conflicts with no room for diplomatic engagements. The West fears the Middle East might budge out of its sphere of influence or West’s botched mediation efforts with traditional political and strategic practices of alliance breaking, regime instability, or go entirely rogue in its nuclear objectives and construct existential insecurities for the world.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.