The security situation in the Middle East reflects the hard realities of power struggle and the implications of the quest for regional hegemony. Nadeem Ahmed Moonakal shows how Israel is exploiting instability to entrench dominance, while Iran’s projected restraint masks deep vulnerabilities. With the US’ ambiguous approach adding to tensions, the space for long-term stability is shrinking
The recent escalation in the Middle East, including US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities following Israeli attacks, highlights the offensive realist argument that states are power-maximising actors in an anarchic international system. To ensure their survival, they seek regional hegemony. Israel’s attacks in Gaza, Syria, and Lebanon are attempts to maximise power and security through disproportional strikes and escalations.
Yet amid this aggressive posturing, the rhetoric of restraint continues to shape diplomatic discourse. States often invoke restraint to preserve legitimacy and manage international backlash. However, such restraint may also be tactical rather than genuine – a strategic pause in a broader pursuit of deterrence. Iran, at its weakest since 1979, has projected itself as a responsible power. Its posture of restraint serves both domestic narrative and international image management. However, it also masks the limitations imposed by the country's internal crises and economic pressures.
Since Donald Trump’s return, US foreign policy has turned erratic. One principle, however, remains unchanged: no administration will let Iran dominate the Middle East. Trump’s approach blends theatrical displays of power and claims to avoid prolonged wars, yet projects dominance when politically expedient.
This principle explains why the strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, amid nuclear negotiations with Tehran, was a show of force with uncertain outcomes. Conflicting reports surround the damage. Israeli intelligence claims the attacks ensured Iran’s nuclear programme has been delayed by at least a few years. Iranian officials offer contradictory narratives, deliberately sowing confusion. Iran’s Supreme Leader disregarded the extent of damage; other Iranian officials have affirmed significant damage to the nuclear facilities. Such a contradictory response is part of Iran’s propaganda strategy. Its regime aims to rally domestic support while projecting a measured stance on the international stage.
The US attacks on Iran have strengthened domestic support for the Iranian regime, justified government crackdowns, and sharpened Iran’s rationale for pursuing a bomb
The attacks on Iran have strengthened domestic support for the regime, justified crackdowns (over 700 arrests on espionage charges), and sharpened Iran’s rationale for pursuing a bomb. As in past conflicts, the Iranian regime is using the current crisis to consolidate power and recalibrate its long-term security interests.
Israel’s assertiveness extends well beyond Iran. Across Lebanon and Syria, it is pursuing a wider strategy of reshaping the regional security order, creating permanent buffer zones, weakening hostile states, and justifying interventions under the pretext of protecting minorities.
Recent clashes in Syria’s Sweida province between Druze and Bedouins left over 300 dead. Israel quickly launched airstrikes on Syria’s Ministry of Defence, claiming to defend the Druze. These justifications, echoed by Israeli Druze leaders and ministers, help build legitimacy for military operations. The Druze, with their deep ties to the Israeli military and political system, are central to this narrative.
Across Lebanon and Syria, Israel is pursuing a wider strategy of reshaping the regional security order in its favour
But the reality is that Israel wants to reshape the security landscape in its favour. Since the fall of Bashar al-Assad's regime, Israel has launched hundreds of airstrikes in Syria. It has destroyed large portions of the country's military infrastructure and now occupies territory beyond the 1974 ceasefire line. Netanyahu’s goal is clear: permanent security buffers and military dominance. In a recent special session led by IDF Chief of General Staff Eyal Zamir, Israeli generals even called for buffer zones along all of Israel’s borders, particularly in areas near Mount Hermon and Jabal al-Druze.
The same logic drives Israel’s actions in Lebanon. Under pressure from within, Hezbollah is weakened. Israel has escalated attacks there, too, framing them as defensive but aimed at weakening its regional foes.
Meanwhile, regional actors and leaders have expressed concern. Lebanon’s top Druze leaders, including Walid Jumblatt and Talal Arslan, have rejected Israeli involvement in Syria. Türkiye, Jordan, and the US helped broker a ceasefire in Sweida. And even within the Trump administration, there is friction. Trump, who supports Syria’s transitional government under President Al-Sharaa, reportedly expressed displeasure at Israel’s destabilising actions.
Nonetheless, Israel continues to exploit political volatility, delaying Syria’s recovery. By framing military interventions as humanitarian or preventive, it reinforces its hegemonic posture and undermines the diplomatic efforts of Gulf states to de-escalate tensions and restore stability.
The broader risk is that these patterns of unchecked force and systemic justification are eroding international norms. Iran sees no incentive to trust legal or diplomatic channels. Israel faces no tangible consequences for violations of international law. And the US, despite shifting rhetoric, remains unwilling to restrain its closest ally.
As Iran and Israel act from positions of strategic compulsion – one to survive, the other to dominate – the space for de-escalation shrinks
As Iran and Israel act from positions of strategic compulsion – one to survive, the other to dominate – the space for de-escalation shrinks. In the absence of credible diplomatic initiatives and effective international law, miscalculation remains a constant threat.
The Iran-Israel conflict and Israel’s actions in the region show the dangerous flaws in our international system and the urgent need to enforce international law with real mechanisms before another crisis breaks out. Amid intensifying great power rivalry, the conflict has already set a dangerous precedent, heightening tensions and exacerbating instability in other parts of the world.
