Who Controls the Game in the Middle East — and Who Writes the Future?

Written by Chenar Sharei.

Written by Chenar Sharei

The Middle East has a long history of crises, but the fire engulfing the region today is not merely another flare-up of old conflicts. It represents a fundamental shift in the regional balance of power and geopolitical dynamics. From Gaza to Lebanon, from the Red Sea to Iraq and Syria, the region resembles a massive chain reaction in which every front fuels another.
Today, the Middle East is trapped in multiple overlapping circles of conflict, the most significant of which include:
- The shadow war that had been fought for years among major powers has increasingly become a direct confrontation.
- The rise of non-state actors and armed groups that now influence decisions of war and peace in several countries.
- Strategic maritime routes such as Bab al-Mandab have become front lines of conflict, bringing regional instability directly into the global economy.

The future of the Middle East is not controlled by a single actor. Rather, it will emerge from the struggle among several major powers. Analysts generally describe three possible scenarios:

1. Permanent Fragmentation
The continuation of the current situation—neither a full-scale regional war nor genuine peace, but a persistent, low-intensity conflict that repeatedly reignites.

2. A New Order Imposed by Force
One side succeeds in overwhelming the other and imposes a new political reality through military superiority. This could create temporary stability, but at the cost of justice and the rights of many peoples.

3. Silence Before a Larger Explosion
If no credible diplomatic mechanism emerges, direct confrontation among major powers could transform the region into a wider catastrophe whose consequences would extend far beyond the Middle East.

The fire burning across the region today is destroying not only lives and territories but also the traditional rules that have governed regional power for decades. The future will not be determined solely by those possessing the strongest military, but by those capable of balancing military strength with economic development and social stability.
For the peoples of the region—especially those who have repeatedly served as fuel for these conflicts, such as the Kurds and other minorities—understanding this complex geopolitical equation and avoiding becoming merely another instrument in the agendas of outside powers may be the only path toward survival and meaningful participation in shaping the future.
The Middle East once again stands on the edge of political and military volcanoes. These conflicts are no longer confined to a single state or battlefield. The flames now stretch from Iran to the Gulf, from Iraq to Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, and from energy corridors to global financial markets.
On 17 July 2026, international reports described an expansion of military confrontations between the United States and Iran, including attacks on strategic infrastructure and renewed threats to vital maritime chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea. As a consequence, oil prices rose sharply while concerns over global energy supplies and international trade intensified.
Wars often begin with weapons, but the future is never decided solely on the battlefield. It is shaped by those who can transform military victories into political achievements, build durable alliances, protect their economies, and maintain the confidence of both their own people and the international community.

This Is More Than a U.S.–Iran Conflict
Although the visible confrontation centers on Iran, the United States, and Israel, the underlying struggle is much broader. It is ultimately a contest over fundamental questions:
- Who will become the dominant power in the Middle East?
- Who will control the region’s oil, gas, and trade routes?
- Who will define the new regional rules?
- Who can protect their allies?
- Who can compel their rivals to recognise their influence?

Over several decades, Iran has built an extensive network of political and armed allies across Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. For Tehran, this network has served not only as an offensive capability but also as a defensive buffer designed to keep war away from Iranian territory.
Yet this same strategy has contributed to expanding the battlefield. Iranian-aligned groups in Iraq and Lebanon have participated in attacks, placing their own countries at greater risk of military retaliation and threatening domestic stability and infrastructure.

America Remains Powerful—But Power Alone Cannot Shape the Future
The United States still possesses the region’s most advanced military, airpower, intelligence capabilities, and technological superiority. It can rapidly target military bases, strategic infrastructure, and enemy capabilities.
Recent months have witnessed expanded American strikes against Iranian targets, with numerous military objectives reportedly attacked.
However, the experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrated that defeating an opponent militarily is far easier than building a stable political system afterward.
The United States can dominate the skies, but it cannot alone control the societies, identities, histories, and internal political dynamics of the region. Without a clear strategy for ending war and establishing peace, military success can become merely the beginning of a longer crisis.
Washington’s real strength therefore lies not only in missiles and aircraft, but also in its ability to build alliances, encourage diplomacy, safeguard global energy routes, and present a credible political roadmap.

Iran Can Endure—But at a High Cost
For decades Iran has adapted to sanctions, economic pressure, and external threats. Its missile arsenal, drone capabilities, and regional allies make it an adversary that cannot easily be ignored.
Its ability to threaten the Strait of Hormuz and global energy routes also represents a significant strategic tool, since prolonged disruption of oil and gas exports could place severe pressure on the world economy.
Recent discussions between the United States and Iran have repeatedly focused on freedom of navigation through Hormuz and energy security.
Yet there is a profound difference between the ability to inflict damage and the ability to shape the future.
Iran may succeed in increasing the costs of war for its adversaries, but if its economy, infrastructure, domestic cohesion, and international relationships continue to weaken, prolonged confrontation could become a war of exhaustion rather than a path toward lasting success.

The Gulf States Are No Longer Passive Observers
For years Gulf countries attempted to balance close relations with the United States while avoiding direct confrontation with Iran. The arrival of missiles and drones near their territories and critical energy infrastructure has fundamentally changed their security calculations.
Strategic assessments across the Gulf increasingly suggest that the conflicts of 2026 demonstrated the limitations of relying solely on external security guarantees. These states now require stronger collective defense systems, more active diplomacy, and greater diversification of energy export routes.
In the future, Gulf countries are unlikely to remain merely hosts for foreign military bases. Instead, they will increasingly participate in defining the conditions of any future regional settlement.
Regional security, freedom of navigation, missile limitations, drone regulation, and long-term stability are expected to become central Gulf priorities.

Israel Seeks to Rewrite the Rules
Israel’s objectives extend beyond weakening Iran’s regional allies. Its longer-term strategy is to fundamentally alter the balance of power that has enabled Iran to pressure Israel from multiple fronts for years.
For Israel, this is ultimately a war of survival and military superiority. However, degrading military threats without addressing the political realities surrounding Palestine, Lebanon, and broader regional security cannot produce lasting peace.
Military forces can be weakened, but political grievances, historical memories, and ideological motivations cannot simply be bombed away. Unless military operations are ultimately followed by political agreements and some measure of justice, future generations may simply inherit the same conflicts.

Türkiye, China, and Russia: The Powers Behind the Curtain
No future regional order will be determined solely by the United States, Iran, and Israel. Türkiye seeks a larger role across Iraq, Syria, the Caucasus, and regional trade corridors, positioning itself simultaneously as a security actor, an energy hub, and a bridge between Asia and Europe.
China has avoided direct military involvement while emphasising regional stability to protect its substantial dependence on Middle Eastern energy supplies. Through investment, economic cooperation, and diplomacy, Beijing continues expanding its long-term influence.
Russia, despite its own challenges, still seeks to preserve strategic leverage in Syria, Iran, and global energy markets.
Consequently, the future of the Middle East will emerge not from one war alone but from the broader competition among American leadership, Chinese interests, Turkish ambitions, Russian influence, and the policies of regional governments.

Iraq: A Battlefield or a Sovereign State?
Iraq stands at the center of this geopolitical fire. Its geography, energy resources, social diversity, relationships with both Washington and Tehran, and the presence of armed groups ensure that virtually every regional confrontation directly affects Iraqi stability.
The greatest danger is that Iraq once again becomes merely an arena where outside powers settle their disputes.
Militia attacks and military retaliation threaten state authority, infrastructure, investment, oil production, and political stability. Yet Iraq also possesses significant opportunities.
If it succeeds in placing all armed forces under state authority, pursuing a balanced foreign policy, managing relations with both Iran and the United States according to Iraqi national interests, and using its geography and energy resources for development, it could transform itself from a battlefield into a center for diplomacy and commerce.
Iraq does not need to fight for one side or another. It needs to fight for its own sovereignty and the survival of the state itself.

Where Does the Kurdistan Region Stand?
The Kurdistan Region occupies an exceptionally sensitive geopolitical position. Its location, energy resources, ties with Western countries, borders with Iran and Türkiye, and proximity to Syria make it an important part of the broader regional equation.
For the Kurdish people, the greatest danger is not simply missiles or military attacks. The greater threat is political fragmentation, internal division, and the absence of a unified national strategy that could exclude them from future decision-making.
Historically, the Kurds have often become victims of decisions made by others because they lacked a unified political position. If a new regional order is emerging, the Kurdistan Region must prepare before those decisions are finalised rather than merely reacting afterward.
This requires separating internal political rivalries from national interests, maintaining balanced relations with Baghdad, Iran, Türkiye, the United States, and Europe, ensuring that Kurdish territory is not used to launch attacks against neighbouring countries, strengthening unified security institutions, utilising energy, water, trade, and geography as diplomatic assets, and negotiating constitutional rights with a single, coherent voice.
In today’s world, divided nations become bargaining chips. Nations with strategy, institutions, and reliable alliances become participants in shaping the future.

Who Ultimately Shapes the Future?
The future of the Middle East will not be determined simply by who wins the next battle. It will belong to the power capable of achieving five essential objectives:
- Building economic, political, and social resilience.
- Maintaining strong and legitimate state institutions.
- Preserving strategic alliances in an increasingly multipolar world.
- Protecting vital energy and trade routes.
- Transforming military success into sustainable political achievements.

The most important question after every war is not what was destroyed—but what can be rebuilt. Whoever can answer that question will shape the future.
If no side achieves a decisive victory, cycles of attack and retaliation will continue, oil prices will remain elevated, investment will decline, and countries such as Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen will become increasingly fragile. That would represent the worst possible outcome for the peoples of the region, because while states weaken, armed groups and illicit economies grow stronger.
Eventually, rising military and economic costs may force all sides back to negotiations. Future agreements could address the Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s nuclear program, missile capabilities, regional proxy forces, and Gulf security.
Indeed, despite expanding military operations, diplomatic efforts concerning Hormuz, ceasefire arrangements, and broader negotiations have continued, demonstrating that even in wartime the door to diplomacy has never been completely closed.
Under a more optimistic scenario, conflict could ultimately produce a new regional balance. The Gulf states would become more united. Iraq would strengthen state authority. Iran would reassess its network of regional allies.
The United States and China would enter a new phase of competition over energy security and regional influence. Such a future could create opportunities—but only for those nations that prepare in advance.
In a region where the skies are filled with aircraft and drones, the seas are under threat, and borders burn with conflict, it is tempting to believe that missiles alone determine the future.
History tells us otherwise.
Wars can redraw borders, weaken governments, and elevate new powers. But lasting influence belongs to those capable of building functioning states, protecting their economies, uniting their societies, and transforming military strength into enduring political success.
The future of the Middle East will not be written solely in Tehran, Washington, Tel Aviv, Ankara, or Beijing. It will emerge from the interaction of all these competing powers.
Yet those who ultimately secure their place in that future will be those who remain united, understand their national interests, develop long-term strategies, and make their own decisions before others make them on their behalf.
For Iraq and the Kurdistan Region, the time for passive observation has passed. They must either become participants in shaping the new regional order—or once again become subjects of decisions made by others.
The fire is already burning across the Middle East. But the future does not belong to those who ignite larger fires. It belongs to those who can find a path to survival, stability, and success amid the flames.