Several Middle Eastern states have witnessed notable shifts in their positions regarding the prospects of military escalation with Iran, amid rising regional tensions and growing pressure on the United States to make a decisive choice between a military path and a diplomatic one.
The Economist magazine published a report stating that further regional conflict could lead to chaos while simultaneously opening new opportunities. On 2 January, US President Donald Trump said, “We are ready”, promising that America would intervene to rescue Iranians protesting against their system. The Middle East continues to question whether the US president will fulfil that promise and when. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, has pledged to ignite a regional war if the United States carries out air strikes.
The report noted that initially, few in the Middle East were enthusiastic about further conflict. Regional decision makers attempted to dissuade Washington from military action, but positions have since become more varied.
At first, Israel, America’s closest ally, opposed strikes on Iran, fearing that any attack would be merely symbolic and might provoke Iran to launch missiles at Israel before the Jewish state was prepared for another war. Even Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, known for his hardline stance towards Iran, appeared surprisingly cautious. He told The Economist in January, “The best revolutions come from within”.
A month later, Israel began urging the United States to launch an attack. Its generals travelled to Washington to discuss strike plans. On 3 February, Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff met Netanyahu, who sought to convince him that any agreement with Iran would be futile.
Saudi Arabia’s position also became more nuanced. The Kingdom initially warned the United States against carrying out strikes, stating it would not allow American aircraft to use its airspace. Riyadh would prefer that Washington refrain from opening fire, but if an attack were to take place, it wants at least to be involved in the planning.
On 30 January, Prince Khalid bin Salman, the Saudi Minister of Defence, was quoted as telling US officials that if no attack occurred, it would “only encourage the Iranian regime”.
The report explained that several factors account for these shifts in Israel’s stance. On one hand, Israel feels reassured by the massive US military build up in recent weeks. The arrival of the American aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in the Arabian Sea, with its powerful air wing, alongside additional squadrons of fighter jets deployed at bases across the region, now gives President Trump the option of launching a sustained air campaign rather than a limited gesture of solidarity with Iranian protesters. Equally significant, the United States has also deployed air defence batteries, providing additional protection against missiles and drones that Iran might launch in response.
On the other hand, Iran is concerned about the potential outcomes of talks between Tehran and Washington. During the peak of protests in January, when massacres were committed against its own people, the Islamic Republic appeared fragile. Israelis and Saudis fear that any agreement, particularly one that includes easing strict US sanctions, could give the regime in Tehran an opportunity to survive.
It remains unclear what these talks would focus on. Previous negotiations centred on Iran’s nuclear programme, which was severely damaged during the twelve day war launched by Israel and the United States in June last year. Iran had previously insisted on its right to enrich uranium and may now be prepared to make concessions on this issue. However, the regime continues to oppose any discussion of restrictions on its ballistic missile programme or its funding of proxy militias in the region. Israelis and Saudis fear that President Trump, instead of exploiting Iran’s weakness to pursue a comprehensive agreement, may settle for imposing nuclear limits alone.
They are not the only ones exerting pressure on Washington. Turkey opposes any military intervention. Sharing a 534 kilometre border with Iran, Turkey fears that war on its frontier could trigger a mass displacement. Its foreign minister, Hakan Fidan, is urging Americans to continue negotiations, advising them to “close the files one by one with Iran, starting with the nuclear file”.
The report added that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has begun a regional tour, during which he met leaders of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. If the United States pursues a diplomatic route, Turkey is likely to be its main partner. If Washington launches an attack on Iran, Israel will certainly be its partner.
Turkey’s influence has grown since the Syrian revolution at the end of 2024, and it maintains close ties with the new government there. To Netanyahu’s irritation, Trump credits Erdogan with the fall of the Assad regime, while the Israeli prime minister believes that Israeli attacks on Hezbollah hastened Assad’s removal. Turkey, alongside Qatar, is seeking to mediate a disarmament agreement with Hamas in Gaza. Meanwhile, Israel remains deeply suspicious of Turkey’s motives and its relations with Hamas’s leadership.
The report concluded that none of this is unfolding in isolation. The region is still suffering from the aftermath of the wars of the past two years, and Trump has further complicated the picture. Alliances are shifting. In the wake of its military victories, Israel once saw itself as the region’s dominant power. Today, Iran appears weaker than ever. Competition for influence is intensifying, and while a regional war could unleash widespread chaos, it would also create new opportunities.
