The End of the Old Middle East
Beyond the battlefield, a new regional order is taking shape — one that could shape a new Middle East for years to come.
Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.
You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.
For decades, the Middle East was defined by one central divide: Israel and the Arab world on opposite sides. That era may now be ending — not through diplomacy alone, but through the shared pressure of war.
The military dimension is the most visible. The Islamic Republic of Iran, long accustomed to projecting power through proxies and asymmetric warfare, is now facing sustained, direct pressure from a coordinated campaign led by the United States and Israel. Its missile barrages, drone attacks, and attempts to disrupt regional energy flows have revealed both its capabilities and its vulnerabilities. The aura of untouchability that once surrounded the regime has been punctured. Since 1979, Iran cultivated the perception that it could act aggressively without triggering a decisive response. That perception is now collapsing.
Yet the true strategic shift is not only being written in the skies over the Persian Gulf or in the Strait of Hormuz. It is unfolding in the capitals of the Arab world.
Consider the speed and severity of recent diplomatic actions. Saudi Arabia’s decision to expel Iranian military personnel following repeated attacks on its territory is not merely a reactive measure; it is a signal. Qatar’s similar move, after strikes on its critical energy infrastructure, reinforces the message. These are not symbolic gestures, but early indicators of a broader regional realignment driven not by ideology, but by shared interests.
For years, the Gulf states attempted a delicate balancing act. They feared Iran, but they also feared escalation. They hedged, engaged, and at times even reconciled, as seen in the 2023 restoration of diplomatic ties between Riyadh and Tehran. The logic was simple: Coexistence, however uneasy, was preferable to confrontation.
That logic no longer holds.
Iran’s decision to extend its retaliation beyond Israel and the United States to include Gulf nations has fundamentally altered the equation. By targeting Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and others — countries that were not direct participants in the initial strikes — Tehran has transformed itself from a contained adversary into an immediate and shared threat. In doing so, it has achieved the opposite of what it likely intended.
Rather than fracture the region or pressure Gulf states into restraining Washington, Iran has unified them in a new and more dangerous consensus: that its military capabilities must be degraded, decisively and perhaps indefinitely.
This is where the true significance of this moment lies.
For the first time, there is a growing convergence between Israel and key Arab states not only in intelligence sharing or quiet diplomacy, but also in strategic outlook. The Abraham Accords began this process by normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab nations. But normalization, while historic, was still limited — fragile, cautious, and often constrained by domestic and regional sensitivities.
War has accelerated what diplomacy could only cautiously begin.
Today, the alignment is no longer theoretical. Gulf leaders who once urged restraint are now, by multiple accounts, encouraging continued pressure on Iran. Some are even considering direct or indirect participation in the military effort. At a minimum, they are opening their airspace, sharing intelligence, and coordinating defenses in ways that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.
The implications are profound.
An unprecedented regional bloc is taking shape, one that spans Israel and much of the Arab world, united not by common identity, but by shared necessity. It is a coalition born not of idealism, but of realism. Iran’s actions have made clear that its ambitions are not limited to Israel, nor to abstract ideological goals, but extend to the stability, sovereignty, and economic lifelines of the entire region.
Energy has played a critical role in this awakening. By targeting refineries, natural gas facilities, and shipping routes, Iran has struck at the very foundation of Gulf prosperity. These states have long positioned themselves as islands of stability in a volatile region — reliable suppliers of oil and gas to the global economy. Iran’s strategy has been to shatter that image, to demonstrate that nowhere is safe.
But in doing so, it has forced a reckoning.
Gulf leaders now face a stark choice: Continue to manage the Iranian threat, or fundamentally alter it. Increasingly, they appear to be choosing the latter. The recognition is spreading that ending the war with Iran’s offensive capabilities intact would not restore stability; it would guarantee future instability, emboldening the Islamic Republic to act with even greater confidence.
This shift is as psychological as it is strategic. Deterrence in the Middle East has always depended not only on military strength, but on perception. Iran’s leadership must now contend with a new reality: It is no longer facing fragmented, cautious neighbors, but a region that is beginning to think and act collectively.
On Israel’s side, this represents a decisive strategic breakthrough. For years it confronted Iran largely alone, its warnings about Tehran’s ambitions often dismissed or minimized by others in the region. Now, those same concerns are being echoed — sometimes more forcefully — by Arab capitals.
The writing, as the saying goes, may already be on the wall.
None of this guarantees a stable or peaceful outcome. The risks remain enormous. Escalation could spiral. Alliances forged in wartime may prove difficult to sustain in peace. Domestic pressures within Arab states could complicate open cooperation with Israel. And Iran, despite its setbacks, retains significant capabilities and a demonstrated willingness to use them.
But even with these uncertainties, something fundamental has changed.
The Middle East is no longer defined solely by old divisions—Arab versus Israeli, Sunni versus Shia, or nationalist versus Islamist. A new axis is emerging, shaped by a shared recognition of threat and a shared interest in confronting it. It is an alignment that would have seemed improbable not long ago, and yet now appears increasingly inevitable.
This is why this moment is defining.
Not because of the missiles fired or intercepted, nor the assassinations deep on Iranian soil, or even because of the damage inflicted on Iran’s military infrastructure. Those are significant, but they are not the enduring story. The deeper transformation lies in the relationships being forged under pressure — relationships that could reshape the region long after the final shots are fired.
In the end, wars are remembered not only for how they are fought, but for what they leave behind. If the current conflict continues on its present trajectory, it may leave behind something unprecedented: a Middle East in which former adversaries stand on the same side of the same strategic divide. And for the Islamic Republic of Iran, that may prove to be the most daunting consequence of all.
There’s a natural instinct — almost a human one — to want this war to end like a fairy tale. The bad guys are eliminated, the threat disappears overnight, and the region resets into something safer, cleaner, and more stable. It’s a comforting narrative: decisive victory, moral clarity, and a clear beginning of a better future.
But that’s not how feuds of this nature necessarily work. And it’s almost certainly not how this war will end.
Regimes like the Islamic Republic of Iran are not fragile constructs. Since the Iranian Revolution in the late 1970s, the regime has spent decades entrenching itself — politically, militarily, ideologically. It has built layers of power: internal security apparatuses, regional proxy networks, economic systems designed to withstand sanctions, and a deeply rooted revolutionary identity. This is not something that disappears after a few weeks or months of airstrikes.
Even those closest to the operational reality understand this. David Barnea, the head of Mossad, has suggested that toppling the Iranian regime could take up to a year. And that may still be an optimistic timeline depending on what “toppling” actually means, because success here is unlikely to look cinematic.
There may be no singular moment where the regime collapses, no dramatic end where one decisive strike changes everything, no clean transfer of power that neatly resolves decades of hostility. Expecting that kind of outcome doesn’t just set unrealistic expectations; it misunderstands the nature of the system being confronted.
But paradoxically, the more realistic outcome may also be the more strategically significant one.
Instead of a sudden collapse, what may emerge is a progressively weakened and increasingly isolated Iran: militarily constrained, economically strained, and regionally contained. A country forced to think twice before projecting power, not because it no longer has ambition, but because the cost of acting on that ambition has fundamentally changed.
At the same time, something else is happening — something far less visible, but potentially far more enduring.
Israel is not just fighting a war; it is reshaping its place in the region. As Gulf states experience Iran’s aggression firsthand, their strategic calculations are shifting. Quiet coordination is becoming more open. Shared threat perception is turning into shared alignment. Relationships that once seemed politically impossible are becoming operationally necessary.
And that shift doesn’t disappear when the war ends.
If anything, it deepens. Defense cooperation expands. Intelligence sharing becomes institutionalized. Economic and diplomatic ties grow not just out of convenience, but out of mutual interest. Over time, Israel is not only more integrated into the region; it is more respected within it.
This is the kind of outcome that doesn’t make for a dramatic headline, but it does define decades. It means a Middle East where Iran is more contained than dominant, where Israel is less isolated than ever before, and where alliances are not built on fleeting moments, but on sustained, shared realities. It is slower, messier, and far less emotionally satisfying than a “fairy tale” ending — but it is also far more durable.
And in a region where durability is rare, that may be the closest thing to victory there is.
Joshua, you’re right that something important may be shifting in the region. If Iran’s power is truly weakened and Arab states align more openly with Israel, that could reshape the Middle East.
Credit where it’s due: Trump and Netanyahu have played enormous roles in pushing this reality forward — from the Abraham Accords to confronting Iran directly.
But we shouldn’t imagine a fairy-tale ending. Iran may be degraded, yet Qatar’s propaganda war continues, Turkey under Erdoğan backs Hamas, and much of the hostility toward Israel in the Arab world still remains.
In the end, real peace will come through two things: strength and education. Strength deters aggression; education changes societies. What we may be seeing now is a powerful start — but there is still a long way to go.
Let’s be blunt: this isn’t a fairy tale ending—it’s a power correction. Iran isn’t disappearing, and anyone selling that is pushing fantasy. But it is being boxed in, degraded, and exposed. That matters. What really matters is the alignment forming in real time—Israel plus Arab states acting on shared threat, not old grudges. That’s historic. And it didn’t come from think tanks or peace panels—it came from force. Durable peace in the Middle East has never come from weakness. It comes when bad actors understand the cost of aggression. That lesson is finally being taught—and the region is recalibrating around it.