Intersecting crises herald critical juncture in Middle East

WASHINGTON –

The protests rocking Iran, coupled with warnings by US President Donald Trump that military action could follow if Tehran continues its violent repression of dissent, underscore a central reality of Middle Eastern politics: domestic crises rarely remain domestic. Instead, they spill rapidly into the regional balance of power, entangling local unrest with broader security calculations.

Yet Iran is only one pressure point in a region experiencing simultaneous strain. Gaza, Syria, Sudan and Yemen are no longer peripheral conflicts competing for attention, but interconnected crises shaping the foreign policies of major powers, particularly the United States. What distinguishes the current moment is not the novelty of these crises, but their convergence.

The Middle East seldom presents the world with a single, containable emergency. Rather, it produces overlapping shocks whose consequences ripple across borders in the form of refugees, rockets, disrupted trade routes and ideological mobilisation. As political scientist Mohammed Ayoob wrote recently in The National Interest, the region is “boiling” not because one war is escalating, but because multiple fault lines are heating up at once, amplifying overall instability.

Iran’s domestic upheaval and regional repercussions

The protests in Iran represent an unprecedented stress test for the Islamic Republic’s system of governance. Years of economic hardship, exacerbated by sanctions and mismanagement, combined with political repression and widening generational alienation, have produced recurring waves of unrest. Each has been met with force rather than reform.

The current crisis appears the most severe since the republic’s founding in 1979. The leadership’s response has followed a familiar pattern: intensified repression that deepens, rather than resolves, the underlying crisis.

Historically, Iran’s foreign policy under domestic pressure has oscillated between restraint and defiance. This ambiguity carries significant regional implications. On one hand, Tehran may seek to avoid escalation abroad that could trigger further sanctions or military confrontation at a moment of vulnerability. On the other, internal pressure often strengthens hardline factions that view regional assertiveness as essential for deterrence, revolutionary credibility and the redirection of popular anger towards external enemies.

This tension reverberates across the region. Iran’s network of alliances with Hezbollah, militias in Iraq and Syria, and the Houthis in Yemen ensures that internal instability in Tehran does not remain an internal affair. It reshapes threat perceptions in Israel and the Gulf, and confronts Washington with an uneasy choice between deterrence, diplomacy and strategic patience in dealing with an Iran that appears simultaneously constrained and unpredictable.

Gaza, a humanitarian tragedy that reshapes regional politics

Gaza remains the emotional and political epicentre of regional turmoil. Even when fighting subsides, the territory continues to act as a catalyst shaping the Middle East’s political climate. The scale of destruction, civilian suffering and unresolved questions of governance ensure that Gaza’s impact reverberates across Arab capitals.

For Arab public opinion, Gaza reinforces narratives of injustice and double standards in international diplomacy, placing additional pressure on governments seen as powerless in the face of Israeli actions. For Israel, the war has deepened existential debates about security while drawing mounting international condemnation.

For external actors, particularly the United States, Gaza has become a critical test of credibility. Having chosen to “own” the peace process under the Trump administration, Washington now finds itself caught between its role as Israel’s principal security partner and its unique capacity to influence humanitarian access, ceasefires and post-war arrangements.

Attempts to balance these roles have satisfied no one. Allies question US resolve, adversaries doubt its neutrality and regional publics view its diplomacy as reactive rather than transformative, shaped as much by domestic politics as by strategic vision. The result is strategic drift: without a viable political horizon for Gaza, every truce merely pauses the countdown to the next explosion.

Syria, an active regional fault line  

Syria is often described as a “frozen conflict,” a label that obscures its reality as an active fault line linking multiple regional rivalries. Its fragmentation allows foreign militaries, militias and intelligence services to operate in overlapping zones, turning local incidents into regional flashpoints.

Turkey occupies a pivotal position. Ankara maintains a substantial military presence in northern Syria driven by two core concerns: preventing the emergence of autonomous Kurdish entities linked to the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), and managing refugee flows that have become a major domestic political issue.

These operations intersect uneasily with US partnerships with Kurdish forces, exposing the limits of NATO cohesion in the Middle East. Meanwhile, Washington maintains a small but symbolically significant presence in eastern Syria aimed at counterterrorism and containing Iranian influence. This reflects a broader US approach: avoiding deep entanglement while preventing adversaries from consolidating control.

The outcome is persistent strategic ambiguity. Syria remains unstable not because any single actor seeks chaos, but because none possesses the will or capacity to impose, or even facilitate, a comprehensive settlement.

Israel and Lebanon: Deterrence under mounting strain

Northern Israel and southern Lebanon represent one of the region’s most dangerous flashpoints. Deterrence governs the calculations of both Israel and Hezbollah, but deterrence based on constant signalling through limited force is inherently fragile. Precision strikes, retaliatory fire and escalating rhetoric create a rhythm that increases the risk of miscalculation and makes large-scale war more likely.

Iran’s shadow looms large here, as do US calculations. Washington has invested heavily in preventing a full-scale Israel-Hezbollah war, recognising that such a conflict would almost certainly draw in Iran and destabilise global markets. Yet American influence remains constrained by domestic politics and alliance commitments.

Yemen, a local war with global consequences

Yemen’s civil war encapsulates the region’s accumulated complexity. What began as a conflict between the Houthis and the internationally recognised government has evolved into overlapping struggles involving southern separatists, tribal forces, regional sponsors and international interests tied to maritime security.

The Houthis’ alignment with Iran links Yemen directly to the broader US-Iran confrontation. Recent US naval deployments and strikes linked to Red Sea security demonstrate how a local conflict can rapidly assume global significance.

At the same time, divisions among anti-Houthi forces, and between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, particularly in southern Yemen, highlight the fragility of proxy alliances when local priorities diverge.

Yemen’s strategic location gives it outsized importance. Roughly 12 percent of global trade, including 8-10 percent of seaborne oil and liquefied natural gas, passes through the Red Sea via the Bab al-Mandab strait. Any disruption forces ships to reroute around the Cape of Good Hope, adding days and significant costs.

The Houthis have exploited this vulnerability in 2024 and 2025 by targeting US- and Israeli-linked shipping in response to Israel’s war on Gaza, illustrating how local actors can influence the global economy and heighten the risk of wider confrontation.

Turkey and the United States: Power brokers or risk amplifiers?

Turkey and the United States occupy a distinctive position in today’s Middle East. Neither is a bystander, yet neither controls outcomes. Both operate across multiple theatres with overlapping and sometimes contradictory objectives.

Turkey seeks to project itself as a regional power balancing security, nationalism and pragmatic engagement. Its policies in Syria, relationships with Russia and Iran, NATO membership, rhetorical positioning on Gaza and domestic political pressures form a complex framework. Its influence is real but uneven: militarily robust, diplomatically constrained and increasingly shaped by internal economic strain.

The United States, meanwhile, remains a global power grappling with regional fatigue. It aims to deter Iran, support allies, secure trade routes and avoid another major war, all while navigating domestic polarisation and competing global priorities. The result often appears reactive and personalised, adding to regional unpredictability.

Interlocking crises in a volatile system

The Middle East appears on the brink of boiling over because its crises no longer remain compartmentalised. Iran’s internal unrest affects regional stability; Gaza’s devastation reshapes public opinion and militant strategies; Syria exports instability by default; Lebanon teeters under constant confrontation; and Yemen’s wars evolve without resolution.

Above it all hover Turkey and the United States, influential yet unable to impose order.

In this volatile context, Trump administration threats of military intervention in Iran, if carried out, could become the spark that ignites an already overheated region, pushing the Middle East from simmering instability into open conflagration.