Author: Prof. Engr. Zamir Ahmed Awan, Founding Chair GSRRA, Sinologist, Diplomat, Editor, Analyst, Advisor, Consultant, Researcher at Global South Economic and Trade Cooperation Research Center, and Non-Resident Fellow of CCG. (E-mail: awanzamir@yahoo.com).

The accelerating U.S. military buildup in the Middle East has created one of the most volatile strategic environments the region—and the world—has witnessed in decades. With aircraft carriers, missile defense systems, and thousands of troops positioned across the Gulf and surrounding areas, the region stands at the edge of a conflict whose consequences would extend far beyond Iran or the Middle East. President Donald Trump’s repeated threats of military action against Iran have not only heightened regional tensions but have also raised profound concerns about global stability, energy security, and the future of international order.

At a time when the world economy is already fragile, any miscalculation in the Middle East could trigger a chain reaction with irreversible consequences. The danger lies not merely in deliberate confrontation, but also in the growing risk of accidental escalation amid crowded seas, overlapping military exercises, and heightened alert levels among rival forces.

A Region Saturated with Military Power

The United States maintains one of its largest overseas military footprints in the Middle East. Major bases in Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, and Syria host tens of thousands of U.S. troops, advanced fighter aircraft, missile defense systems, and naval assets. The U.S. Fifth Fleet, headquartered in Bahrain, patrols some of the world’s most strategically sensitive waterways, including the Strait of Hormuz—through which roughly one-fifth of global oil supplies pass.

This concentration of military power is now being reinforced by additional deployments, justified by Washington as “deterrence.” Yet history shows that deterrence can quickly turn into provocation when political rhetoric hardens and diplomatic channels narrow. Iran, perceiving these moves as preparations for attack rather than defense, has responded with its own signals of readiness.

Tehran has made it clear that any assault on its territory would be met with retaliation, potentially targeting U.S. military installations across the region as well as Israel. While Iran’s conventional military capabilities do not match those of the United States—particularly in air power and advanced missile defense—it possesses asymmetric tools that could inflict significant damage, disrupt regional security, and destabilize global markets.

Military Imbalance, Political Resolve

There is little dispute that Iran’s air force is outdated and its air defense capabilities limited compared to American or Israeli systems. However, wars are not decided by hardware alone. Iran’s strategic depth lies in its political resolve, its regional influence, and its ability to wage asymmetric warfare.

Iran’s leadership views resistance as a matter of national survival, shaped by decades of sanctions, external pressure, and regional confrontation. This has fostered a political culture where resilience is framed as legitimacy. In such an environment, military inferiority does not necessarily translate into strategic defeat. On the contrary, it can encourage risk-taking, particularly when leaders believe they have little left to lose.

Moreover, political dynamics in the region are not operating in Washington’s favor. Many Middle Eastern states—while maintaining ties with the United States—have expressed clear opposition to a war with Iran, fearing regional chaos, refugee flows, and economic devastation. Unlike past conflicts, the U.S. does not appear to enjoy broad international backing for military action.

The Question of Justification

President Trump has repeatedly cited Iran’s alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons as a central justification for potential military action. Yet this argument has become increasingly contested. Iran’s nuclear infrastructure suffered significant damage during U.S. strikes in June 2025, while Israeli operations over the years—including the assassination of prominent Iranian nuclear scientists—have further disrupted Tehran’s nuclear program.

Independent assessments suggest that these actions have set Iran’s nuclear capabilities back substantially. While concerns about nuclear proliferation should never be dismissed lightly, the claim that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat lacks the clarity and consensus required to justify a major war under international norms.

A second justification offered by Washington relates to Iran’s internal political situation, particularly allegations of using force to suppress protests. While Iran’s human rights record remains a legitimate subject of international concern, protests within the country have largely subsided, and selective humanitarian arguments risk appearing instrumental rather than principled when paired with threats of military force.

Taken together, these justifications appear increasingly fragile, raising questions about the true drivers of escalation.

Israel, U.S. Politics, and Strategic Pressure

It is widely acknowledged in policy circles that Israel views Iran as its primary strategic adversary and has consistently advocated a hard-line approach toward Tehran. Israel’s security concerns are real, but the degree to which they shape U.S. decision-making has become a subject of intense debate.

Various political analysts and commentators have argued that domestic political pressures, lobbying dynamics, and strategic alignment with Israel are pushing Washington toward confrontation. Allegations circulating in media and political discourse—though unproven—have further complicated perceptions of U.S. decision-making, contributing to the sense that policy toward Iran may be driven by factors beyond clear national interest calculations.

What matters most, however, is not speculation about motives, but the tangible risk that such pressures could propel the world into a conflict with catastrophic consequences.

Global Economic Shockwaves

A military confrontation with Iran would almost certainly send shockwaves through the global economy. Even the threat of conflict has already pushed oil and gold prices upward. A full-scale war could cause energy prices to surge beyond historical precedents, disrupting supply chains, fueling inflation, and pushing vulnerable economies toward recession.

The Strait of Hormuz remains a critical chokepoint. Any disruption—whether through direct confrontation or indirect instability—would affect energy-importing countries worldwide, from Asia to Europe. In an interconnected global economy, no nation would remain insulated from the fallout.

Beyond economics, the humanitarian cost would be immense. War in the Middle East has repeatedly demonstrated its capacity to displace millions, destabilize entire regions, and leave long-lasting scars that outlive the conflict itself.

A Trilateral Convergence of Military Exercises

Adding to the risk is the convergence of major military activities in the same maritime space. China, Russia, and Iran are conducting joint naval exercises in the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean—drills planned well in advance and officially described as routine. Yet their coincidence with heightened U.S. deployments introduces an element of danger.

In crowded waters where multiple naval forces operate in close proximity, the margin for error is thin. A single miscalculation, misinterpretation, or technical incident could spiral rapidly into a larger confrontation. History offers sobering reminders of how unintended clashes can escalate beyond political control.

An Isolated United States?

One of the most striking aspects of the current situation is the apparent absence of a broad coalition supporting U.S. military action. In Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, Washington acted with the backing—explicit or implicit—of NATO allies, regional partners, or United Nations frameworks. Today, that support appears conspicuously lacking.

The European Union has urged restraint. The United Nations has not authorized force. NATO allies are hesitant. Regional states have voiced opposition. This isolation raises serious questions about the sustainability and legitimacy of any unilateral military move.

Turkey’s Quiet Diplomacy

Amid this tense landscape, Turkey’s efforts to mediate deserve recognition. Ankara has sought to open channels of dialogue, reduce tensions, and explore diplomatic off-ramps that could prevent war. While such initiatives may not resolve deep-seated disputes overnight, they reflect an understanding that diplomacy—however imperfect—is infinitely preferable to war.

By engaging both Washington and Tehran, Turkey is attempting to preserve regional stability while offering a face-saving exit for all parties involved. Such efforts highlight the continued relevance of middle-power diplomacy in an increasingly polarized world.

A Moment for Strategic Restraint

The world stands at a dangerous crossroads. A war with Iran would not be a contained conflict; it would reverberate across regions, markets, and generations. The costs—human, economic, and strategic—would far outweigh any perceived gains.

History will not judge leaders by their willingness to threaten force, but by their capacity to prevent catastrophe. Strategic restraint, renewed diplomacy, and respect for international norms are not signs of weakness; they are the hallmarks of responsible leadership.

At this critical juncture, the choice is stark: escalation toward chaos or a return to dialogue and reason. For the sake of regional stability and global peace, the latter must prevail.

(ASIA PACIFIC DAILY）