The security foundation on which the GCC’s economic model was built has been seriously undermined. Unless these nations can forge a new, credible framework, it will be difficult to sustain the foreign investment and confidence that have fueled their growth.

The war against Iran is not going well for Israel, which is being bombarded daily, nor is it going well for the US, which has seen its military bases and strategic facilities in the region attacked and degraded by Iranian drones and missiles. Of course, Iran suffers most of all, but it has shown a remarkable capacity to fight a war of attrition, despite the dreadful daily onslaught from the skies. Its reconstituted leadership has shown not a hint of the “unconditional surrender” that Trump is demanding.

The U.S.-Israel strike on Iran lacks a clear legal basis or credible justification and represents a high-risk gamble by the Trump administration. Despite early military success, the operation faces uncertain prospects, including limited chances of regime change and the risk of prolonged conflict.

Growing instability in the global order and rising uncertainty in relations with major powers are driving countries such as India, Canada, Brazil, and European states to deepen cooperation with one another. These middle powers are increasingly pursuing strategic partnerships, trade agreements, and supply-chain coordination to preserve autonomy and stability amid great-power rivalry.

The death of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in U.S.-Israeli strikes has created leadership uncertainty in Tehran, weakened Iran’s regional network of allies, and accelerated shifts in Middle Eastern power dynamics. For China, the conflict threatens energy supplies and Belt and Road investments while potentially expanding Beijing’s diplomatic role if it maintains neutrality and engagement with all sides.

Reaffirming legal limits is not an act of idealism. It is one of prudence. Strategic stability is not self-sustaining. It must be actively maintained. And in the nuclear age, maintenance begins not only with capability but with responsibility.

Critics of the attack on Iran by the United States and Israel point out that US President Donald Trump has no plan for what comes next. And they are not wrong: when Trump boasts that he can resolve wars in a single day, he merely exposes the limits of his attention span. But the real problem is not the shortness of Trump’s time horizon; it’s the narrowness of his threat perception.

China declined an opportunity to join Iran in its June 2025 confrontation with the United States and Israel. Though Beijing enjoys good relations with the Iranian regime, competing alignments and other considerations convinced PRC policymakers to adopt a low profile during the twelve-day war.

Attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities showed the pragmatism of U.S. foreign policy. The airstrikes were neither purely isolationist nor ideologically preemptive. Instead, they were a calibrated, interest-driven move to neutralize a threat while avoiding overcommitment.

The answer will depend on whom you ask. But one thing is certain, the attacks by Israel and the United States on Iran’s nuclear facilities did not advance the cause of peace in the Middle East. They only added to suspicions and made a resolution more difficult to attain