The Middle East powder keg

Editor's note: Xu Ying, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is a Beijing-based international affairs commentator. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

As tensions mount over Iran's nuclear program and regional dynamics grow more precarious, the possibility of an American direct military conflict has become a major concern.

Historically, the region's crises have been managed, however imperfectly, through a mix of strategic ambiguity, deterrence, and backchannel diplomacy. But the current dynamics reflect a more dangerous trajectory.

Israel's increasing "preemptive" actions, Iran's expanding capacity for asymmetric retaliation, and a more assertive American stance under the Donald Trump administration have created a confluence of pressures that could rapidly push the region toward escalation. The risk today is not only that a war may occur, but that it may unfold as a result of miscalculated deterrence strategies.

Central to the tension is Iran's nuclear infrastructure, especially the heavily fortified Fordow uranium enrichment facility, which lies deep within a mountain in central Iran. Israeli officials have long asserted that a nuclear-capable Iran represents an existential threat, justifying a wide array of preventive measures, including cyber operations, sabotage, and targeted strikes. The United States, for its part, holds unmatched military capabilities to conduct deep-strike operations.

However, the availability of sophisticated weaponry does not guarantee a clean or limited outcome. A preemptive strike by Israel – or a joint operation involving the United States – could provoke immediate retaliation by Iran and its regional partners, potentially including attacks on U.S. assets, Israeli cities, and oil infrastructure in the Gulf. Iran's deterrence doctrine, refined over two decades of strategic pressure, emphasizes dispersion and asymmetric retaliation through missile forces, proxy militias, and cyber capabilities. This would make escalation not only likely but potentially uncontrollable.

The strategic calculations of the principal actors complicate matters further. For Israel, the imperative to act is shaped by a defense doctrine that favors early and decisive action to eliminate threats before they mature. But this logic increasingly runs up against regional diplomacy. While Israel has expanded formal relations with several Arab states through normalization agreements, its broader regional standing remains fragile – particularly in light of its ongoing conflict with Palestinians. The strike against Iran could reignite diplomatic backlash across the Middle East, even among states that share concerns about Tehran's ambitions.

Though Iran faces internal economic and social pressures, its leadership has shown no indication of capitulation. On the contrary, Iran's strategic calculus views nuclear advancement as a necessary deterrent against external threats. Tehran's security establishment is convinced that its best chance of survival lies in raising the costs of foreign intervention. This approach is based on asymmetric, deniable, and often unconventional tools, whose removal through force is likely to provoke serious consequences.

The United States finds itself in a strategically ambiguous position. The Trump administration's rhetoric on Iran remains uncompromising, emphasizing maximum pressure and resolve. Yet domestically, there is little political appetite for a new military conflict in the Middle East. Within the administration and its political base, there are two contradictory impulses: a desire to maintain strategic dominance and project strength, and a reluctance to become bogged down in another protracted regional war. This contradiction has produced a policy of posturing without clarity, leaving allies uncertain of Washington's intentions and adversaries potentially tempted to test its resolve.

The potential consequences of a broader conflict cannot be overstated. Any military escalation would disrupt the already fragile regional stability. Global oil markets – heavily dependent on the secure flow of energy through the Strait of Hormuz – would be deeply affected, with ripple effects across the international economy. Beyond material costs, the reputational damage for any actor perceived as initiating or escalating hostilities would be severe, particularly if diplomacy is prematurely abandoned.

In this complex and combustible environment, the most responsible course of action is one grounded in strategic restraint. Deterrence alone cannot ensure stability. While military readiness and credible red lines may play a role in shaping behavior, they must be coupled with diplomatic channels, multilateral engagement, and a renewed commitment to nonproliferation frameworks.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which Iran signed in 2015, accepting restrictions on its nuclear program for easing of sanctions, but which was weakened after the U.S. pulled out of it under Trump three years later, still offers an avenue for transparency, monitoring, and de-escalation. Reviving it or negotiating a new, inclusive agreement, while not resolving all underlying tensions, or eliminating the potential for future provocations, will restore a critical mechanism for communication and verification. It will reduce the risk of inadvertent conflict, and reaffirm the principle that enduring solutions in the Middle East must be pursued through diplomacy rather than confrontation.

Ultimately, the region's security cannot rest indefinitely on preemption, coercion, or isolation. A long-term framework must include regional security guarantees, confidence-building measures, and sustained political dialogue. It must also reflect the reality that no single power – regional or external – can impose order without consent and cooperation from the wider international community.

The Middle East has experienced too many cycles of violence. The decisions made at this critical moment and in the coming weeks and months will reverberate far beyond Tehran, Tel Aviv, and Washington. The task now is to prevent the powder keg from igniting. That will require vision, discipline, and, above all, a return to diplomacy grounded in mutual security rather than zero-sum calculation.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)