Ultimately, the future of the region will not belong to the side that stands tallest on the battlefield, but to those willing to build bridges instead of blockades
THE Middle East in 2025 remains caught in a cycle of renewed tensions, shifting alliances, and stalled diplomacy. Two developments stand out: the re-imposition of UN sanctions on Iran and the intensifying confrontation between Iran and Israel — both reshaping the region’s power dynamics.
In August this year, Britain, France, and Germany — the “E3” — triggered the “snap-back” mechanism under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), alleging Iran’s failure to uphold its nuclear commitments. On 28 September, the UN Security Council reinstated major sanctions, including an arms embargo, asset freezes, and bans on the transfer of nuclear-relevant materials.
Iran rejected the decision as “illegal and politically motivated.” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei declared, “The threat to use the snapback mechanism lacks legal and political basis and will be met with an appropriate and proportionate response.”
Tehran insists its nuclear programme is peaceful. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reiterated that cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) must be reciprocal — meaning, Western powers must first halt their “hostile actions,” particularly sanctions.
In short, diplomacy has stalled, confrontation has risen, and neither side appears ready to compromise.
In June 2025, Israel launched a series of strikes on Iranian nuclear and missile sites. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described Iran’s programme as “a threat to our very existence,” declaring that Israel was close to eliminating the dual dangers of Iranian missiles and nuclear capability.
Iran, meanwhile, denounced the attacks and vowed not to yield. Beyond direct confrontation, Tehran continues to rely on its extensive “Axis of Resistance” — a network of allied groups in Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen and Iraq. These proxies allow Iran to project power and influence across the region without direct war. Israel and its allies view these groups as an existential and strategic threat.
Russia and China have both sided with Iran in rejecting the E3’s snap-back move. Moscow and Beijing declared the measure “legally baseless and procedurally flawed.” Russia further warned Washington that any strike on Iran would destabilise the entire Middle East.
While both powers conduct joint naval drills with Iran and maintain energy and arms ties, neither has intervened militarily in the Israel-Iran confrontation. Still, Iran seeks to expand cooperation — for instance, through defence technology exchanges with China and economic corridors linked to Russia’s Eurasian strategy.
The European Union and Arab states are trying to address the broader regional crisis, balancing sanctions and mediation with the European Council pressing an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, humanitarian access, and the release of hostages, alongside calls for Israel to uphold international humanitarian law.
An Arab-led reconstruction plan for Gaza, supported by Egypt, Qatar, and Gulf states, includes conditions such as Hamas’s disarmament and reforms in Palestinian governance. These efforts show that regional influence now extends beyond military confrontation — toward humanitarian diplomacy and reconstruction politics.
Israel maintains clear military superiority — in intelligence, precision strikes, and missile defence — and Netanyahu calls the recent campaign a “historic victory” over the Iranian threat.
Yet power in the Middle East is not only measured in weapons. Iran’s resilience lies in networks, adaptability, and ideological legitimacy. Despite sanctions, Iran continues oil exports — reportedly over 1.5 million barrels per day early this year (Reuters, April 2025) — and has cultivated an economy capable of enduring isolation.
Analysts from the International Crisis Group and others warn that sustained pressure without diplomacy may strengthen Iran’s hardliners rather than empower moderates. The paradox is clear: Israel dominates militarily but cannot easily dismantle Iran’s influence; Iran suffers economically yet endures politically and ideologically.
The evolving Middle East order is not shaped solely by the strongest military power but by those who can combine strength with diplomacy, inclusion, and institutional vision. The EU’s role in Gaza, Arab mediation efforts, and Iran’s strategic partnerships show that influence now lies in adaptability, cooperation, and endurance.
The snap-back sanctions and military strikes reveal the limits of coercion. Sustainable peace will require more than deterrence — it demands restraint, dialogue, and shared institutions.
Ultimately, the future of the Middle East will not belong to the side that stands tallest on the battlefield, but to those willing to build bridges instead of blockades. Power, to endure, must evolve from domination to diplomacy.
————
Azmat Ali is a student at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Views expressed here are author’s personal. He can be contacted at rascov205@gmail.com and @azmata90_lle (Instagram ID)
