The ability to distinguish between deterrence and control, on the one hand, and an unintended slide into broader confrontation, on the other, is declining not only in the Middle East but across the globe.

Conflict zones are increasingly interconnected, and the tools of pressure continue to diversify and accumulate. The danger arises not only from the outbreak of deliberate wars or preemptive strikes but also from approaching war as a fully calculated option. Europe is experiencing this transformation under a veil of suppressed anxiety, with the war in Ukraine serving as a stark test of the European system’s vulnerability in confronting an exhausted Russia. Moscow, in turn, seeks to redefine the rules of engagement with the West, exploiting what it perceives as weakening European political resolve and American hesitation shaped by domestic considerations. The United States manages a complex web of interconnected crises - from Venezuela and Ukraine to the South China Sea, the Middle East, trade disputes, and the global economy - granting itself strategic flexibility while simultaneously risking exhaustion if it is forced to move from risk management to full engagement. In the Middle East, global attention focuses on the limits of Iranian deterrence, the extent of U.S. support for Israel, and the capacity of regional powers to adapt and maneuver.

The pressing questions remain: Where is the region headed, and how will major powers interact with local actors in a comprehensive test of strategic balance?

Internationally, the US seeks to maintain its dominance through a combination of military and political power, economic influence, and strategic diplomacy, while closely monitoring the actions of other global powers. China and Russia are reprioritizing, benefiting from any American retreat in traditional and new areas of influence, while the European Union struggles to maintain its interests amid this rapid international transformation. 

Traditional wars are no longer the sole instruments of influence or deterrence. Pressure now extends to economic measures, cyber operations, political campaigns, and strategic alliances. Every major decision in Washington, Moscow, Beijing, or Brussels reverberates across conflict zones, including the Middle East, which has effectively become a global laboratory for testing the dynamics of power and balance.

In this context, no move by Iran, Israel, Turkey, or any Arab state can be understood in isolation from the broader international landscape. Each player’s ability to balance power, exert pressure, and navigate internal and external interests ultimately determines their success - or exposes them to risk.

The United States does not seek to control the Middle East from a local perspective because its priorities lie elsewhere. It wants to solidify American influence, yet away from crisis management. The Trump administration prefers to avoid escalation on any regional front and does not want a test of its ability to manage alliances and maintain the global balance of power. A major challenge for the Trump administration is the complex dance between the Iranian and Israeli doctrines. 

Iran tries to maintain its influence through a network of proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, benefiting from political and economic vacuums, but it is limited in its capacity for direct action. The Iranian doctrine, which involves raising ceilings, bartering, and exploiting vacuums, allows Tehran to temporarily retain its political influence without slipping into a comprehensive confrontation that may threaten its internal interests entirely. 

Israel, meanwhile, pursues a strategy aimed at controlling potential threats to its national and ideological interests. The government promotes settlement projects in the West Bank, sidestepping President Donald Trump’s opposition to annexation, while Gaza is managed in a manner designed to prevent any security vacuum.

Lebanon continues to serve as a testing ground for deterrence and confrontation, with Hezbollah acting as a key player. While its direct impact is limited, the group can exert pressure in line with Iranian strategy. Israel’s doctrine, meanwhile, focuses on preventing any concentration of power near its borders, leaving the door open for potential confrontations.

The notable new aspect of Israeli strategy is implementing a security belt and buffer zones with Lebanon and Syria, supported by American and international guarantees. 

The United States views Israel as a pivotal strategic ally, and any threat to it translates directly in Washington as a test of American deterrence capability. The Trump administration seeks to use precise pressure and control tools to manage Israel, contain Iranian influence, and monitor regional dynamics without slipping into confrontation. 

In Syria, following a decline in direct Iranian influence, the government faces a complex set of challenges: the resurgence of ISIS, the management of Kurdish and other minority populations, and pressure from Turkish influence in the north of the country.

Israel aims to establish buffer zones along its borders to ensure security, while the United States views Syria as strategically important for its broader priorities. Washington remains committed to maintaining stability that safeguards Israeli security, monitors Turkish influence, addresses internal challenges, and manages the risks posed by extremist groups.

Iraq and Yemen serve as extensions of these strategic calculations. In Iraq, Iranian influence faces sustained American pressure on the government, while in Yemen, the new Saudi initiative emphasizes containment rather than confrontation, with Iran playing a limited role. These regions test Washington’s ability to balance pressure, regional alliances, and threat management without escalating into a full-scale confrontation.

Turkey emerges as a key variable in northern Syria and other strategic areas, where its expanding presence is reshaping regional balances. As a result, any Syrian or Israeli move is influenced by indirect interactions between major powers. Turkey’s influence extends to controlling strategic territories, managing minority populations, and creating pressure corridors that Washington or Tel Aviv could leverage to navigate on-the-ground dynamics.

Palestine remains a sensitive point: the West Bank is under strict control, and Gaza is managed to prevent any security vacuum Hamas or others might exploit, while Egypt and Qatar play vital roles as mediators to balance between international pressure and Israeli security. 

Internal challenges in both Iran and Israel are closely tied to the trajectory of external threats and confrontations. In Iran, there are genuine risks of "impulsion" that could plunge the country into widespread chaos, affecting its neighbors and becoming a significant factor in the strategic calculations of both regional actors and the United States.

Saudi Arabia fully recognizes the risks posed by potential chaos inside Iran, pursuing a policy of détente with Tehran and prioritizing diplomacy over confrontation. For Riyadh, internal stability is not a luxury but a strategic necessity to contain the crisis and prevent broader escalation.

Hopefully, Iranian leaders will exercise the wisdom to move beyond the bazaar mentality and recognize that there is no escape from adjusting the regime's nuclear, missile, and expansionist doctrine through proxies and arms. Failing to do so will place them at the center of escalating pressure from both domestic and international fronts.

Israel also faces significant risks if it continues its settlement policies and rejection of the two-state solution and the establishment of a Palestinian state. The country remains confident in firm U.S. support, as veteran Republican Senator Lindsey Graham described it as a “strategic value” for the United States. Nonetheless, Israel’s derailment of Trump’s plans for Gaza and the broader Middle East could prove costly.

Maintaining strategic stability requires Israel to move beyond a siege mentality. No country, regardless of its size or power, is immune to repercussions if it fails to address challenges wisely and deliberately. Persisting with a “siege” mindset in the face of a “bazaar” mentality could prove far more damaging to Israel’s future than any direct external threat.

Closing off political and ideological options fosters both internal and international isolation and reduces maneuverability during periods of genuine tension. Israel must strike a delicate balance between firm deterrence and strategic flexibility, ensuring that rigidity does not become a trap that undermines security or limits its capacity to maintain long-term stability.

We are entering a year of serious testing for both Iranian and Israeli doctrines. The more concerning element is the apparent insistence on and determination for confrontation, primarily through proxy wars in Lebanon. This does not rule out the possibility of a direct conflict, as mere containment and brinkmanship may ultimately prove insufficient.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar.