A New Middle East Is Unfolding Before Our Eyes

It might be difficult to discern through the black clouds billowing from bomb craters in Tehran, but Iran has spent most of the 21st century as the region's rising power.
Until recently, things had really been going its way. In Iraq, the U.S. toppled Saddam Hussein, then departed, having turned Iran's largest and most dangerous neighbor from an enemy to a vassal even before Tehran's militias rescued Baghdad from ISIS, and then stayed. The forces Iran sent to Syria did double duty, rescuing the Assad regime while opening an arms pipeline to Hezbollah, the Iran-backed militia fighting beside them. Based in Lebanon, Hezbollah was the crown jewel in the 'Axis of Resistance' that Iran had arrayed against Israel.
And for more than 80 years, opposition to Israel had defined the Middle East.
For the Islamic Republic of Iran, it still does. Removal of the Jewish state from 'Islamic lands' is core to the ideology of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which casts Iran in the unlikely role of leader of the Muslim world. America is the Great Satan, but for Iran's proxies in Baghdad, Lebanon, and Yemen, Israel is the target. So on the eve of Oct. 7, 2023, the leaders of Hamas, the only prominent Palestinian node in the axis, had reason to assume that after breaching Israeli defenses on the Gaza Strip and pouring into Israel by the thousands, they would not be fighting alone for long.
But the axis of resistance barely resisted at all. Hezbollah launched a few missiles a day toward Israel when the 'Zionist entity' was most vulnerable. Iran's leaders had scanned the battlefield, and, seeing an opponent backed not only by U.S. arms and intelligence, but also a nuclear arsenal, remembered why they were investing in one of their own: survival. In the words of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, creator of the theocratic system that governs Iran, 'The preservation of the system is the highest priority.' Solidarity with the Palestinians was laudable, but there's also such a thing as self-interest.
The problem, for both Iran and the Palestinian cause, is that the rest of the Middle East had already come to the same conclusion. During the two decades Iran was extending its military reach in the name of the Palestinians, the wealthy kingdoms of the Persian Gulf had been making common cause with the Jewish state.
The fact is, most of the Arab world had made some accommodation or other with Israel. Egypt and Jordan, which share borders with Israel, signed peace treaties with it after suffering repeated military defeats at its hands. The Gulf states aligned with Israel in large part out of a shared enmity for Iran. As home to Islam's dominant Sunni branch, the kingdoms know Iran not only as radical, but as the nominal leaders of the minority Shi'ite branch, and thus a rival. Saudi Arabia, custodian of Islam's holy sites, has its own claim to leadership of the world's Muslims.
As autocratic states, the Gulf kingdoms were also eager clients for an Israeli tech sector that had grown out of its military. Surveillance, not least of millions of Palestinians under occupation (and obliged to use Israeli phone systems), generated startups like the spyware firm NSO Group, which soon found clients in the Arab regimes. One, the United Arab Emirates, was the first nation to cement diplomatic ties with Israel under the Abraham Accords, the signal diplomatic achievement of the first Trump Administration. Three other Arab states followed, and the Saudis keep signaling their intention to do the same once the situation in Gaza permits.
But Gaza churns on, a war Israel had not expected, and has no plan to win, because at bottom it's not a military affair. The Palestinian question—What to do about the people who claim the same land Jewish Israelis do?—will still be waiting when the shooting stops. The war on Iran, by contrast, is one Israel spent years planning for, and opened with the playbook of deception, decapitation, and precision strikes on missile sites that decimated Hezbollah in the space of a month last September, freeing Israelis from the dread of the militia's 100,000 missiles, and exposing Iran to the Israeli offensive that began June 13.
That day, a shepherd posted cell phone footage of an Israeli C-130 low in the sky over Syria, sheep bells clanking over the roar of the engines. The Assad family had fled the country months earlier, helpless to keep rebels out of Damascus without Hezbollah. Iran sent a plane to evacuate its generals to Tehran. There, the question is how Israel will choose to define victory. Regime change did not go so well in Iraq. And the stated goal of demolishing Iran's nuclear facilities appears impossible without U.S. airstrikes.
That decision rests with Donald Trump. His choice may alter the region in unforeseen ways. But by reaching past the Palestinians to embrace Israel, as well as the sheiks of the Gulf, the U.S. President already has described the contours of its new, more transactional reality. In 1945, the mere prospect of an Israeli state inspired a boycott by every Arab one, in the name of the Palestinians. Eighty years later, an Arab nation can declare outrage that 55,000 have been killed in Gaza, then dispatch jets to intercept Iranian missiles aimed at Tel Aviv, joining Israeli warplanes in the skies over a new Middle East.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Newsweek

23 minutes ago

• Newsweek

Is Donald Trump Considering Tactical Nukes Against Iran? What We Know

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Trump administration has not taken anything "off the table," including the use of tactical nuclear weapons, if it decides to take military action against the underground Iranian nuclear facility at Fordow, Fox News reported, citing a White House official. It followed a report in The Guardian that the president "is not considering using a tactical nuclear weapon on Fordow." The Pentagon declined comment to Newsweek, instead referring to a statement by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who said on June 16 that he had directed "the deployment of additional capabilities" to the Middle East. "Protecting U.S. forces is our top priority and these developments are intended to enhance our defensive posture in the region," Hegseth said. President Donald Trump speaks to the press in the Oval Office of the White House on June 18, 2025 (left) and a retired U.S. B61 thermonuclear gravity bomb, a type of tactical nuclear weapon still... President Donald Trump speaks to the press in the Oval Office of the White House on June 18, 2025 (left) and a retired U.S. B61 thermonuclear gravity bomb, a type of tactical nuclear weapon still in service, shown in 2021. More BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Jon G. Fuller/GETTY/AP Why It Matters No nuclear weapon has been deployed in war since the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in 1945, and any use of such weapons against an Iranian facility would be extremely controversial in the U.S. and worldwide. On Thursday, the White House said Trump would decide "within the next two weeks" whether the U.S. will join Israeli military action that began on June 13 against Iranian nuclear sites. Israel claims that Iran is working toward building a nuclear weapon, while Tehran insists its nuclear program is entirely peaceful. What To Know One of Iran's most important nuclear sites is the Fordow nuclear enrichment facility, which is believed to be buried about 80 meters deep into the side of a mountain. Experts have suggested Israel doesn't have any conventional bombs capable of destroying the site, though on Thursday Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that "we have the capability" to "hit all of their nuclear facilities." Unlike Israel, the U.S. possesses 30,000-pound GBU-57s "bunker buster" bombs that are specifically designed to reach targets buried deep beneath the surface and can be deployed by B-2 Spirit heavy bombers. On Wednesday, citing people "familiar with the deliberations," The Guardian reported that Trump "does not appear to be fully convinced" that GBU-57s bombs can reach the Fordow facility. It said the effectiveness of GBU-57s against the Fordow facility was "a topic of deep contention" within the Pentagon, citing two defense officials, with some reportedly believing that only a tactical nuclear weapon could destroy the site. It added that Trump was "not considering" the option and said it hadn't been presented by Hegseth or Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Dan Caine. Tactical nuclear weapons are smaller than strategic nuclear weapons and are designed to be deployed for limited strikes or on the battlefield, rather than against whole cities. The U.S. maintains a large arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, though none have ever been used in combat. Fox News senior White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich said she was told by a White House official that The Guardian report was "false." According to Heinrich, the official "has no doubt about the efficacy of bunker busters in eliminating the site at Fordow" adding they also denied "that any options [including tactical nukes] have been taken off the table." Israel has been attacking Iranian military and nuclear sites since June 13. On Thursday, the Washington-based group Human Rights Activists said that at least 639 people had been killed in the attacks, though the figures have not been independently verified. In response, Iran has fired ballistic missiles at Israel, killing 24 civilians, according to Israeli authorities. On Friday the British, French and German foreign ministers were slated to meet their Iranian counterpart in Geneva, Switzerland, in a bid to resolve the conflict. U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy said that "a window now exists within the next two weeks to achieve a diplomatic solution." What People Are Saying Fox News senior White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich: "There have been a lot of headlines this afternoon including one from The Guardian that claims that the U.S. military has doubts about whether the 'bunker-buster' bombs could get the job done, further claiming only a tactical nuke maybe could finish it and it further stated that the president is not considering a tactical nuke, that it was not one of the options presented to him. "I was just told by a top official here that none of that report is true, that none of the options are off the table and the U.S. military is very confident 'bunker busters' could get the job done at Fordow." Fox News host Jesse Watters, on Thursday: "The Guardian reported Trump was getting cold feet worried about the effectiveness of 'bunker busters' and not willing to use tactical nukes. But the White House tells Fox that's not true, everything's on the table, even tactical nukes." Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, on Friday, referring to possible U.S. tactical nuke deployment, according to Russia's TASS news agency: "This would be a catastrophic there are so many speculations that, in fact, it's impossible to comment on them." What Happens Next It is not yet known whether the U.S. will launch strikes against Iran and, if so, what weaponry it will use. Deploying a tactical nuclear bomb, the first use of a nuclear weapon since World War II, would be a controversial move.

Yahoo

23 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Yemen's Houthis mull how they can help ally Iran against Israel

As the war between Israel and Iran continues, Yemen's Houthi rebels say they are coordinating with Tehran. The Houthis, also known as Ansar Allah, have since 2023 launched attacks on Israel and shipping in the Red Sea in what they say is support for Palestinians in Gaza. The Houthis are also a close ally of Iran, and now they say that their latest attacks are on behalf of the 'Palestinian and Iranian peoples', according to the Telegram account of Houthi spokesperson Yahya Saree, who added that the Yemeni group were coordinating with 'the operations carried out by the Iranian army against the criminal Israeli enemy'. On Sunday, two days after Israel first attacked Iran in the early hours of June 13, the Houthis announced that they had targeted Israel. In a televised address, Saree said the group fired several ballistic missiles at Jaffa. The Houthis are timing their attacks with the Iranians, according to Hussain Albukhaiti, a pro-Houthi political commentator. The Houthis are launching missiles 'after Iran launched its missiles', Albukhaiti told Al Jazeera. 'This way the Zionist settlers [Israelis] keep going back and forth to their shelters so they can live a small fraction of the fear they caused the Palestinian people in Gaza.' The Houthi attacks are essentially a continuation of their previous periodic missile and drone attacks on Israel. The Israelis have mostly been able to intercept the attacks but some have gotten through, most notably an attack in early May on Ben Gurion airport that injured six people and led to a suspension of flights. But the Houthi attacks have also had another consequence for Israeli defences, according to Yemen expert Nicholas Brumfield. 'The constant threat of Houthi attacks coming from the south requires Israel to spread out its air defences rather than positioning them all to more effectively [defend] counterattacks coming from Iran,' he told Al November 2023, the Houthis began attacking ships they say were linked to Israel in the Red Sea. International ships that travel to the Red Sea are forced to pass Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen. The attacks have ceased in recent months, particularly after the Houthis and the United States came to an agreement to stop attacking each other in early May, following a US bombing campaign that is reported to have killed more than 200 people in Yemen. But the attacks could still resume, and the Houthis never agreed to stop targeting Israel, which itself has also continued to bomb Yemen. 'We had an agreement with the US to stop attacking each other, but Yemen will not obey this agreement if the US joins the Zionists in their attacks against Iran,' Albukhaiti said. 'We remember that Trump cancelled the nuclear deal between Iran and the US,' he said, referring to the US president's unilateral withdrawal from the nuclear deal between Iran and several Western countries in 2018. Albukhaiti accused Trump of cancelling the deal because it was not in Israel's interest. 'Yemen will do the same, and will cancel the agreement with the US, because it's not in the interest of Iran, which is an important ally of Yemen,' he said, referring to the Houthi rebel group as 'Yemen', although the group's government is not recognised internationally. Iran has also threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, which lies between it and Oman. About 20 million barrels per day (BPD), or the equivalent of about 20 percent of global petroleum liquids consumed, pass through the Strait of Hormuz, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). Analysts said the Houthis could potentially do the same in the Red Sea. Sea mines are 'very low-tech, easy-to-make mines that would nevertheless introduce considerable uncertainty for global shippers,' Brumfield said. 'I don't think that Iran or Yemen will hesitate to use sea mines if necessary to block the entire shipping lines in our region,' Albukhaiti are also fears that the conflict could drag in other countries in the region. The US has bases in a number of countries in the Middle East, and the Houthis have previously been involved in fighting with many of them, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. If the current conflict spirals, Gulf countries may find themselves threatened by Houthi attacks. 'The Houthis are trying to recover from the US strikes we saw between mid-March and May, and probably aren't begging to restart those more intensive strikes if they don't have to,' Brumfield said. 'But I also think they'd be amenable to restarting them if they saw themselves as participating in a grand regional war between the US-Israel and the Axis of Resistance, especially if a lot of US military resources are diverted to Iran.' Albukhaiti said Houthi forces 'could also target US bases in the region', specifically those involved in the coalition against Yemen, such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, because 'we are still at war with these countries', he said. The Saudi-led coalition intervened militarily in the war in Yemen between the Houthis and the country's internationally recognised government in 2015, unleashing a years-long campaign of air strikes. Saudi Arabia ceased hostilities in Yemen in 2022, but has yet to officially reach a deal with the Houthis. And before that, it had come under Houthi attack. In 2019, Saudi oil production was cut by around 50 percent after Houthi drone strikes on oil plants. Since then, analysts say the Saudis have worked hard to keep more stable relations with the Houthis in order to avoid further attacks. But despite these efforts, the detente could be forgotten if the Houthis see fit to resume hitting their northern neighbour. 'I don't think [attacks on Saudi Arabia are] off the table,' Brumfield said. 'If elements in Houthi leadership in favour of a military-first approach win out, it's plausible they would attack the Kingdom [of Saudi Arabia] as part of a general escalation in both the regional and Yemen conflict.' Brumfield added that the Houthis would, however, have to also keep in mind that Saudi Arabia has provided 'diplomatic cover' for the Houthis in the past few years, as it seeks to find a final deal to end the conflict in Yemen. Any attacks from the Houthis would likely make Saudi Arabia abandon that groups in Yemen have been watching events carefully over the past few months, as they sense an opportunity with the initial US campaign against the Houthis, and now the weakening of the Houthis' principal ally, Iran. 'The most [the Houthis are] capable of doing is continuing symbolic attacks on Israel or potentially restarting activity in the Red Sea,' Raiman Al-Hamdani, an independent Yemen analyst, told Al Jazeera. 'But doing so could provoke a renewed military response from the US, Israel, and the UK, which might weaken their position domestically and open space for anti-Houthi groups to exploit any resulting instability.' However, analysts say that few of the groups that oppose the Houthis, including the Yemeni government, are in a position to take and effectively govern territory from the Houthis. And, should those groups mobilise, the Houthis would likely respond, Albukhaiti said. Houthi forces could target any domestic opponents through 'oil and gas fields and platforms' as well as the 'airports and water distillation plants' of the countries he said backed the groups, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

The Hill

37 minutes ago

• The Hill

What happens if Iran falls? Nothing good.

Since Israel launched its campaign against Iran, the whispers of regime change have swelled into roars. President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu now openly entertain the possibility of removing Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Western press, as usual, salivates. Opinion writers speak of 'freedom,' of 'liberation,' of 'a new democratic dawn.' They should know better. We all should. This isn't the first time America has overthrown a government in Tehran. In 1953, the CIA helped orchestrate the ousting of Mohammad Mossadegh — a democratically elected prime minister who had the audacity to nationalize Iran's oil. That coup installed the Shah, a brutal monarch who fed dissidents into the meat grinder of SAVAK, his secret police. Torture chambers, disappearances, censorship — the entire Cold War authoritarian playbook was handed to Tehran on U.S. government stationery. That regime change led not to liberty, but to the Islamic Revolution of 1979. In short: the last time America meddled, it turned a secular democracy into a theocratic furnace. We have made this mistake before, and we are about to make it again. Let's not pretend the fall of the Islamic Republic would yield some Instagram-filtered liberal utopia. That fantasy is for people who read Foreign Affairs magazine like it's a Marvel comic book. The reality? Chaos. Deep, tribal, sectarian chaos. A power vacuum that would make Iraq look smart. If the Iranian regime collapses, the dominoes won't fall politely. Iran isn't just a nation — it's a spider at the center of a vast web of proxy forces and regional entanglements. Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, Shia militias in Iraq and Syria — what happens to them when the spider dies? Do they disband? More likely, they go rogue. Unleashed, uncoordinated and angry. They won't sit for peace talks — they'll torch what's left of the map. And these groups aren't ragtag militias. They are disciplined, battle-hardened and ideologically committed. With Tehran gone, they would no longer be restrained by any centralized strategy. They would become freelance war machines, pursuing old vendettas with new ferocity — armed, funded and furious. What about the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps? They are not going to hang up their boots and go quietly into retirement. They are a state within a state, with their own army, economy and ideology. They run ports, banks, and oil fields. They have more institutional muscle than many small nations. If the regime fractures, these war-hardened ideologues will carve out fiefdoms. Think Taliban with oil money. Think Lebanon's civil war, but on steroids. And unlike the Taliban, they don't aim for isolation — they export chaos. Now imagine ten different Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps offshoots, each with its own turf war, trying to seize Iran's critical infrastructure while gunning down ideological rivals. That's not liberation. That's Mogadishu, possibly with nukes on the menu. And then there's the nuclear wildcard. A destabilized Iran, fractured between militias and factions, becomes the world's most terrifying flea market: ballistic missiles for sale, enriched uranium changing hands with no adult supervision. Intelligence services across the globe would scramble to secure loose weapons, only to find they have already vanished into the black market. You think ISIS with a truck bomb is bad? Try Hezbollah with a suitcase nuke. Try a warlord with enriched uranium looking to make a name. The dream of a free Iran could birth a nightmare of a dozen failed mini-republics, each with its own flag, their own grudge and their own appetite for vengeance. Let us not forget what happens when Washington gets high on its own mythology. Regime change never ends with ticker tape and smiling schoolgirls holding flowers. It ends with boots in sand, contractors feeding at the trough, and entire cities flattened because someone in D.C. thought history was a choose-your-own-adventure book. Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan — how many more lessons do we need? How many broken nations do we walk away from before admitting we are not exporters of democracy but arsonists in suits? And those arsonists still don't carry water. They still don't rebuild. They hold press conferences. They slap flags on blown-up convoys. And when it all fails — again — they blame 'tribalism' or 'regional instability' instead of their own god complex. And what of the wider Middle East? Saudi Arabia will see an opening to expand influence, while Turkey eyes northern Iran like a hawk. The Gulf States, already teetering on paranoia, will bankroll private armies and surveillance empires to keep the revolution from spilling over. The Sunni-Shia divide won't heal — it'll erupt. Not a Cold War. A regional wildfire. Religious factions with tanks. Nationalist militias with drones. Oil fields turned battlegrounds. Refugee crises so large they dwarf Syria. All because the West once again mistook force for foresight. Meanwhile, the people of Iran — those who've suffered under theocracy and deserve better — will get caught in the crossfire of empires and ideologues. Again. The same people who rose up in the streets for women's rights, for secularism, for freedom of speech — shot in the back by snipers under Khamenei — will now be crushed between collapsing regimes and foreign opportunists. They'll be the first to die, and the last to be remembered. The truth is ugly, but it must be said: toppling Khamenei won't liberate Iran. It will unhinge it. The Ayatollah's fall, however deserved, would not be a curtain call; it would be an opening act for something far more brutal. Revolution, after all, is rarely the final chapter. It's the prelude to civil war. And civil war in a country with roughly 90 million people, ballistic missiles, and regional reach isn't a footnote. It's a global event. The West doesn't need more regime changes. It needs a regime change of thought. The idea that we can shape the world in our image with drones and platitudes has led to an era of smoldering ruins and refugee camps. This isn't just hubris; it's homicide dressed up as humanitarianism. And the victims aren't dictators. They are doctors, shopkeepers, little girls clutching backpacks instead of rifles. If Iran falls, it won't be freedom that rises. It will be fire, and we lit the match. John Mac Ghlionn is a writer and researcher who explores culture, society and the impact of technology on daily life.