By: Dr. Abdelaziz Tarekji
Investigative journalist and researcher in international human rights violations
.
A regional scene on the brink of ignition
At an extremely sensitive regional moment, the Middle East returns to the center of the geopolitical storm amid an unprecedented escalation in the American military presence and the intensification of Israeli rhetoric regarding confrontation with Iran and its arms in the region, foremost among them Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The scene does not reflect a mere transient show of force, but rather indicates a stage of strategic repositioning that may redraw the maps of deterrence, alliances, and alignments in one of the most fragile and complex regions of the world.
When aircraft carriers multiply, long-range bombers are deployed, and military bases in the Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean are activated, the question becomes not only what is happening, but where this escalatory trajectory is heading.
.
Militarily: the buildup of force between deterrence and preparation for confrontation
The American military escalation in the region — from aircraft carriers to combat ships, defensive systems, strategic bombers, and refueling aircraft — reflects a high level of operational readiness.
This buildup may be read within the doctrine of preventive deterrence adopted by Washington to send a clear message that any expansion of the conflict will be met with overwhelming force.
However, the dense accumulation of military power in a limited geographical theater also raises the level of risk, as any miscalculation or accidental incident may turn into a confrontation that is difficult to contain.
Modern military history proves that major wars often begin from a miscalculated moment of tension, not from a formally declared decision of war.
.
Politically: internal calculations and the construction of escalatory rhetoric
The current escalation cannot be separated from internal political calculations in Washington, Tel Aviv, and Tehran.
In the United States, the military decision is subject to delicate balances between deterrence and avoiding being drawn into a prolonged war that drains resources and affects the domestic front.
In Israel, the rhetoric of military decisiveness is sometimes used to strengthen the image of deterrence and restore internal confidence in the security establishment, particularly in light of the challenges the state faced in previous rounds of tension.
As for Iran, it continues to manage its regional conflict through an extended network of influence, benefiting from the principle of “plausible deniability” to avoid a direct and comprehensive confrontation, while maintaining multiple pressure tools across various arenas.
.
Legally: limits of the use of force and the problematics of pre-emptive defense
Any broad military confrontation against Iran or Lebanon raises profound legal questions in light of the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international humanitarian law.
The principle of the prohibition of the use of force constitutes the fundamental rule upon which the contemporary international system is based, and it is excepted only in cases of legitimate self-defense under strict conditions.
Expanding the concept of an “imminent threat” to justify wide preventive strikes may weaken the global legal framework and open the door to dangerous precedents.
Likewise, any targeting of civilian areas or vital infrastructure will be subject to rigorous assessment in terms of proportionality and distinction, which may expose the parties involved to international legal responsibilities.
.
Responsibility for escalation: Iran’s interventions and the expansion of its arms versus Israel’s military policies
The current scene cannot be read in isolation from the role Iran has played over the past two decades in expanding its regional influence through supporting, arming, and financing armed groups outside the framework of the state in a number of Arab countries, from Yemen to Syria, passing through Iraq and Lebanon.
This expansion was not merely traditional political influence, but was linked to the creation of military networks parallel to the state, the reshaping of internal balances of power through arms, and involvement in armed conflicts that resulted in grave human rights violations, deepened divisions, and weakened national state institutions.
Supporting armed movements outside national legal frameworks and employing them in regional conflicts directly contributed to raising the level of regional tension and creating an environment prone to explosion at any moment.
Conversely, Israeli military policies based on pre-emptive strikes, cross-border assassinations, and the targeting of infrastructure within sovereign states, alongside the continued occupation of Palestinian territories and settlement expansion, have also constituted a permanent factor in fueling the conflict and undermining the prospects of stability.
The purely security-driven approach, which adopts military force as both the first and last tool, has contributed to entrenching the logic of open confrontation and weakening confidence in any long-term political process.
The continuation of military operations outside the framework of a comprehensive and just settlement only perpetuates the cycle of violence, even when justified under the banner of deterrence or national security.
The result is that what we witness today is not the product of a passing moment, but the outcome of a long accumulation of expansionist policies, military interventions, and proxy wars that have made the region hostage to an equation of weapon against weapon and deterrence against deterrence, without addressing the political roots of the conflict. Without acknowledging the responsibility of these mutual policies in bringing the region to the brink of explosion, any discourse on stability remains incomplete.
.
International allies: sponsors of polarization and a shield of impunity
The expansion of Iranian influence and its arms in the region cannot be separated from an international network of support that has long presented itself as “allies” against Western hegemony, but in practice contributed to consolidating polarization and fueling conflicts through political protection in international forums, providing economic and technological channels, and perpetuating the equation of impunity.
The role of Moscow and Beijing, along with other actors, was not always direct on the ground, but it was influential in shaping an environment that allowed the continuation of repressive regimes and armed groups outside the state, through blocking resolutions, reducing international pressure, or providing commercial and financial alternatives.
This approach was particularly evident in the region’s bloodiest files, where geopolitical interests intertwined with the discourse of “sovereignty,” turning sovereignty into a justification that prevents protecting peoples from violations, delays justice, and prolongs conflicts.
If the fall of the former Syrian regime represented a revealing moment, it also exposed the limits of that patronage when it collides with the will of peoples and the collapse of internal structures, though it did not necessarily end the support networks or their tools, but rather pushed them toward more cautious and less costly repositioning.
.
In perspective: will Russia and China intervene militarily or limit themselves to managing the crisis from behind?
In a scenario of broad American-Israeli confrontation with Iran or its spheres of influence, the probabilities of direct Russian or Chinese military intervention appear low, not only because the cost of confrontation with the United States would be high and uncertain, but because the priorities of both Moscow and Beijing do not indicate readiness to enter an open war in the Middle East.
Russia, immersed in the war in Ukraine and the military, economic, and political exhaustion it entails, tends to avoid opening a new hot front that could impose commitments for which it does not possess surplus power. Therefore, its role is likely to be limited to less costly tools more consistent with its current behavior, such as intelligence or technical support, strengthening defense cooperation, or using the Security Council and international platforms to obstruct political legitimization of adversaries or ease pressure on allies, while maintaining back-channel negotiations to preserve its energy and influence interests.
As for China, even if it possesses growing political ambition, its strategic structure remains governed by the priority of economy, trade, and the stability of supply and energy routes. From this standpoint, it is unlikely that Beijing would engage in a direct military adventure that could endanger its investments, markets, and transcontinental initiatives, or place it in a hard confrontation with Washington in a theater where it lacks sufficient military tools on the ground. The more likely scenario is that China would use its diplomatic and economic influence to avoid or contain the explosion, pushing toward de-escalation or mediation, working to protect energy flows, and possibly resorting to alternative economic arrangements to mitigate the impact of sanctions or safeguard its commercial interests, without exceeding the threshold of “no war” that it prefers.
Accordingly, the image of an “international camp” that would rush militarily to rescue Iran in a comprehensive war appears closer to a propaganda narrative than to a strategic reality. Support may occur, but it would most likely be indirect, calculated, and conditioned on avoiding direct involvement, as Russia and China may see in the crisis an opportunity to politically erode American influence, not to enter into a direct military confrontation that does not serve their current priorities.
.
The Gulf role: de-escalation diplomacy and an attempt to restrain the explosion
In contrast to the scene of sharp military polarization, a growing Gulf role emerges, led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in a different direction based on consolidating de-escalation and preventing the region from sliding into a comprehensive war.
Riyadh has worked in recent years on a strategic repositioning based on reducing regional tensions, opening channels of dialogue, and restoring the logic of the state in the face of the logic of militias.
This approach was not tactical or temporary, but part of a broader vision aimed at protecting regional stability, securing paths of development, and preventing uncontrolled regional forces from dragging the region into open conflicts.
Saudi diplomatic movements, whether through direct contacts or regional and international partnerships, reflected a deep awareness that any broad confrontation between Iran and Israel or between the United States and Tehran’s arms would not remain within narrow geographical limits, but would extend its effects to the entire region, including energy security, maritime routes, and economic stability. Hence the emphasis on crisis containment and privileging dialogue, while maintaining at the same time a firm stance toward any threat affecting the security or sovereignty of Arab states.
The Gulf vision, led by Saudi Arabia, proceeds from a clear equation: development and stability cannot flourish in an environment of permanent conflicts, and any regional project based on exporting crises or arming non-state actors will remain a factor threatening collective security. Therefore, the role of de-escalation does not mean neutrality toward violations, but rather striving to prevent comprehensive war while preserving the principles of sovereignty and rejecting external interference regardless of its source.
.
Between the logic of force and the logic of the state
The Middle East today stands at a decisive crossroads, not only between a possible war and a fragile peace, but between two contradictory models for managing the region: the logic of raw force and the logic of the consolidated state. Over many years, external interventions, axis politics, proxy wars, territorial occupations, cross-border assassinations, and support for armed groups outside the framework of the national state have accumulated until the region turned into an open arena for regional and international score-settling. This accumulation was not a passing event, but an escalating trajectory that produced an extremely fragile environment, prone to ignition at the first direct contact between opposing forces.
Yet a broad explosion, even if perceived by some as an opportunity to redraw balances, will not be a clear victory for anyone, but a prolonged catastrophe first and foremost for the peoples who have paid and continue to pay the price of conflicts in blood, displacement, and economic collapse. Modern wars do not remain confined to battlefronts, but extend to cities, infrastructure, and economies, leaving long-term effects on social and political stability and opening doors to new waves of extremism and chaos.
Assigning responsibilities clearly — whether for Iran’s interventions and its arms in Arab countries, Israel’s military policies, occupation, and cross-border operations, or for the role of international powers that provided political cover to conflicts — does not mean justifying a comprehensive war, just as rejecting armed chaos does not mean defending any expansionist project under any slogan. Clarity in identifying the sources of imbalance is a necessary condition for any serious treatment, but it does not replace the urgency of finding a way out that prevents the region from sliding into an open confrontation difficult to control.
The real wager today does not lie in who possesses the larger arsenal or stronger deterrence capability, but in who can restore the value of the idea of the national state as the sole legitimate framework for monopolizing arms and making sovereign decisions. Only the logic of the state — not the logic of militias nor that of occupation — can establish sustainable stability. Only respect for sovereignty in its genuine legal meaning — not its use as a cover for violations or expansion — can rebalance regional relations. Only recourse to fair international rules applied to all without exception, without double standards or political selectivity, can open a window of hope in the wall of escalation.
At a moment when the drums of war are rising, adherence to the logic of the state is not merely a moral discourse, but a strategic choice to protect what remains of regional balances and prevent the region from collapsing into total chaos that could redraw its maps to the rhythm of open fire that no one can guarantee to extinguish.
