As the smoke clears from the US airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, the world stands at a geopolitical crossroads, anxiously anticipating Tehran’s response. The strikes—unprecedented in their scope and timing—have triggered a wave of uncertainty across West Asia, the Middle East, and beyond.
Analysts are now debating whether Washington’s action was a calibrated deterrent designed to placate Israeli pressure and to appease Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or whether it marked the opening salvo of a broader, more devastating war against Iran that could spiral into full-scale regional conflict? In either case, Iran’s next move will likely define the trajectory of a conflict that threatens to redraw alliances, disrupt global energy markets, and upend the fragile balance of power in the Gulf.
The United States’ entry into the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran marks a pivotal and perilous shift with global implications. What began as a regional confrontation now threatens to spiral into a broader geopolitical crisis, with key trade routes—such as the Strait of Hormuz—hanging in the balance. Washington faces a stark dilemma: pursue escalation and regime change or push for containment through urgent diplomacy. Either path carries heavy costs.
West Asia is once again on the brink of a wider regional war. The Gulf States were caught in the crossfire, particularly Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Qatar, and the UAE; the war represents a nightmare scenario. Economically interdependent with both the West and Asian powers and militarily reliant on US security guarantees, they now face missile threats, oil shipment disruptions, and the spectre of domestic unrest. The region’s economic model, built on stability and energy exports, is directly at risk.
Iran has intensified its diplomatic efforts, reaching out to China, Russia, and even India to de-escalate tensions and reframe the conflict as a violation of international law. The UNSC convened an emergency session at Tehran’s request, signalling the gravity of the unfolding crisis. UN Secretary-General António Guterres cautioned that the region stood “on the brink of a deadly downward spiral”. Russia, China, and Pakistan demanded an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, while allies Israel and the USA lauded the attacks.
While no immediate consensus emerged from the Security Council—largely due to divisions among the permanent members—the session reflected growing international unease about the prospect of escalation. The strike raised critical questions about the legality of preemptive military actions and the erosion of international norms governing the use of force.
The war has stirred anger across the Arab world, not only against Israeli aggression but also against regional complicity. Social media campaigns and protests in countries like Jordan, Egypt, and Kuwait reflect a growing frustration with the normalisation deals and passive stances of some Arab regimes. While this has yet to coalesce into a political movement, the tide of public sentiment could reshape intra-Arab and Arab-Asian alignments.
India’s calculated response to the unfolding conflict has been particularly notable. As a key strategic partner of both the United States and Israel—while simultaneously relying heavily on Iranian oil and maintaining deep economic ties with the Gulf states—New Delhi finds itself navigating a complex geopolitical maze. In line with its broader foreign policy doctrine, India has adopted a stance of strategic ambiguity, urging “all parties to exercise restraint” and emphasising the need for dialogue and de-escalation.
India imports over 60% of its crude oil from the Gulf. Moreover, over 8 million Indian nationals work across the region, sending home billions in remittances annually. Any expansion of the conflict threatens both energy security and the safety of this diaspora. Delhi is thus keen to avoid being dragged into overt alignment while protecting its citizens and supply chains through backchannel diplomacy.
Heightened alerts have already been issued across US military bases in the region, signalling Washington’s anticipation of possible retaliation. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has hinted at a range of responses, including targeting US naval assets in the Persian Gulf or launching cyberattacks on critical infrastructure.
Global reactions to the US strike reveal deep fractures in the world order. France and Germany urged a return to diplomacy via the JCPOA, while Russia condemned the attack as reckless and destabilising. China, adopting a cautious tone, called for restraint and emphasised the need to protect non-proliferation norms and global energy security.
Despite the dangerous escalation, a sliver of space for negotiation remains. The fact that both Washington and Tehran have publicly downplayed the strategic value of the targeted facility suggests a mutual desire to manage the crisis rather than provoke a full-scale war. Iran’s statement that enriched uranium had been removed from the Fordow site before the strike, along with the US assertion that it only targeted facility entrances, signals calculated restraint on both sides.
This opens a narrow window for diplomacy, but whether global and regional actors can seize it remains uncertain. The US and Israel appear intent on weakening Iran’s regime, while Tehran is opting, for now, to mute its response to avoid crossing the threshold into uncontrollable conflict.
With trust eroded, diplomatic channels frayed, and alliances increasingly fragmented, a return to serious negotiation will require far more than rhetoric. It will demand bold, credible mediation efforts—particularly from middle powers and trusted regional actors willing to bridge divides and de-escalate tensions before it’s too late.
- Dr. Waiel Awwad
Senior international journalist, West Asia strategist