Escalation as strategy or geopolitical dilemma? The Gulf at the heart of global shifts

The regional as well as the global scene is no longer merely drifting toward conflict; it is accelerating into a new and dangerous phase of open confrontation. The military strikes launched by the United States and Israel against Iran on 28 February 2026 marked a watershed moment in an already fragile regional regime and international order. What had previously been a shadow confrontation — managed through deterrence, proxies, and calibrated escalation — has now shifted into direct and overt military engagement, with profound implications not only for the Middle East but also for the global system at large.

This escalation unfolded at a time when the international environment was already strained by economic fragility, declining diplomatic engagement, climate emergencies, and protracted conflicts from Europe to Latin America. Instead of consolidating post-pandemic recovery, the world finds itself confronting a widening arc of instability. In the Middle East, wars in Gaza and Lebanon, instability in Yemen and Syria, and threats to maritime navigation in the Red Sea had already put enormous pressure on regional security structures. The Israeli-Iranian confrontation, now intensified by direct American involvement, has transformed the region into the epicentre of a broader geopolitical shock.

The humanitarian and economic toll on the region is mounting. The Middle East has endured decades of compounded crises — armed conflicts, displacement, economic downturns, and fragile governance structures. Each new escalation further erodes institutional resilience and public trust. Civilian populations bear the brunt of uncertainty, while regional economies — many still recovering from previous shocks — face volatility in markets, investment flows, and fiscal stability.

Nowhere is this impact more evident than in the energy domain. The Gulf region remains the backbone of global energy supply, and any military escalation involving Iran inevitably raises concerns over the security of maritime corridors, particularly the Strait of Hormuz. A significant portion of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas exports passes through this narrow waterway. Even the perception of threat — whether through direct strikes, missile launches, or naval disruptions — translates immediately into price volatility, increased insurance costs, and fears of supply chain interruptions. In a world already grappling with inflationary pressures and trade fragmentation, such instability compounds global economic strain.

Equally concerning has been the expansion of retaliatory dynamics beyond the main combatants. All Arab Gulf states had adopted cautious and balanced diplomatic positions, emphasising de-escalation and dialogue while actively seeking to prevent the slide toward war. These countries recognised that regional stability is inseparable from global economic security. Despite these efforts, Iran’s decision to widen its retaliatory scope toward targets or interests linked to neighboring Gulf states represents a deeply troubling development.

Such actions risk undermining mediation channels and eroding the political capital invested in de-escalation. Targeting or threatening states that were not direct parties to the strikes — and that had exerted diplomatic efforts to prevent escalation — does not strengthen strategic leverage. Instead, it creates new arenas of tension and may compel these states to recalibrate their security doctrines and deepen defensive alignments, thereby reinforcing polarisation rather than containing it. Strategically, broadening the conflict’s geography increases systemic risk and diminishes prospects for negotiated restraint.

Regional and, of course, international relations are thus entering a more fragmented phase. Doubts about the effectiveness of international organisations are growing, particularly as major powers resort to force in resolving disputes. Trade wars, technological rivalry, and geopolitical polarisation have already weakened multilateral cooperation. The current escalation further entrenches divisions and reduces incentives for compromise.

The consequences are very serious and extend beyond immediate military confrontation. Geostrategic tensions undermine cooperation on climate change, counterterrorism, and sustainable development. The Middle East, one of the regions most vulnerable to climate stress, requires coordinated adaptation policies and technological collaboration. Yet rising distrust and strategic competition divert attention and resources toward armament rather than sustainability.

Global military expenditure — already reaching approximately $2.5 trillion in 2023 and $2.7 trillion in 2024 according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute — illustrates the structural shift toward securitisation. Additional escalation in 2026 is likely to push these figures higher, redirecting funds from social development, infrastructure, and climate resilience toward defense spending. This reallocation exacerbates inequality, deepens poverty in conflict-affected areas, and fuels cycles of displacement.

At the same time, geopolitical crises create fertile ground for extremism. Polarisation, sectarian narratives, and perceptions of injustice can be exploited by non-state actors seeking recruitment and mobilisation. History has shown how prolonged instability in the Middle East can give rise to armed organisations that transcend borders and destabilise wider regions.

The present trajectory reveals a paradox: the more crises intensify, the more cooperation becomes necessary — yet the political space for cooperation shrinks. Sustainable solutions to energy security, climate adaptation, economic resilience, and counterterrorism demand collective frameworks. However, as states prioritise deterrence and power projection, multilateralism recedes.

The unfolding confrontation underscores a fundamental lesson: security built solely on military calculus is inherently fragile. Lasting stability in the Gulf and the broader Middle East cannot be achieved through escalation cycles that widen the circle of confrontation. It requires recalibration toward diplomacy, mutual security guarantees, and respect for regional sovereignty.

There remains an opportunity, however narrow, to redirect policy choices toward cooperative frameworks that safeguard energy routes, protect civilian populations, and prevent further regional spillovers. The alternative is a prolonged period of volatility in which the Strait of Hormuz, global energy markets, and fragile regional societies remain hostage to recurring escalations.

Peace and development must re-emerge as the organising principles of regional as well as international engagement; without a collective realisation that perpetual confrontation undermines all actors, the reverse encounter between geostrategic crises and international cooperation will continue to define this era, at immense cost to the Middle East and the world.

Rashid Alzaabi is a Researcher at TRENDS Research & Advisory