Middle East

Recent statements by France, the United Kingdom, and Canada—subsequently echoed by other European states—on their intention to recognise a Palestinian state in September mark a notable transformation in the policies of major Western powers toward the Palestinian question. This development comes against the backdrop of the deepening humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, manifested in widespread famine and a death toll exceeding 60,000, which has further amplified international calls for an urgent political resolution to the decades-long Israeli–Palestinian conflict.   The announcements from Paris, London, and Ottawa—particularly France’s unconditional pledge alongside the conditional approaches adopted by the United Kingdom (UK) and Canada—represent a clear departure from traditional diplomatic norms, which had long tied recognition of a Palestinian state to the conclusion of a comprehensive negotiated peace agreement. This shift reflects mounting frustration over the stalled peace process, coupled with a growing conviction that conventional pathways have ceased to yield results. Recognition of Palestine is now increasingly seen not merely as the outcome of peace but as an instrument to catalyse the political process, thereby reshaping the diplomatic tools available for addressing the conflict and establishing a precedent that other states may exploit to strengthen international pressure.   At the international level, between 140 and 147 of the 193 UN member states already recognise Palestine as a sovereign state. This broad consensus provides the reference framework for understanding the recent decisions taken by France, the UK, and Canada. Notably, these three countries are all members of the G7, none of which had taken such a step before France’s declaration. France—Europe’s most populous nation—thus emerges as a prominent actor in this diplomatic shift, with both France and Canada poised to become the first G7 states to extend formal recognition to Palestine.   By contrast, the U.S. remains the sole permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) that has yet to recognise the State of Palestine. This imbues the current shift with symbolic weight, laying the groundwork for a recalibration of diplomatic pressure on both Israel and the U.S., and potentially encouraging other hesitant Western states to follow suit. The divergence of positions within the Atlantic powers also underscores how internal pressures and the urgency of the humanitarian crisis have shaped the emergence of more assertive stances. Against this backdrop, this analysis explores the drivers behind this shift and its political and security implications for the states concerned, alongside the anticipated responses from Israel and the U.S.

Iran’s militias in Iraq and Lebanon are currently grappling with multi-dimensional crises, including the erosion of their political influence, mounting military pressures, and the need to recalibrate their strategies amid shifting regional alliances in a volatile regional and international environment. These challenges are undermining their ability to sustain the role they once played within Iran’s “Axis of Resistance.” This situation coincides with the visit of the Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, at a particularly critical and sensitive moment. The visit represents either an opportunity to forge new alliances or an attempt to rescue embattled allies in Iraq and Lebanon.

On July 28, 2025, during a joint press conference in Scotland with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, U.S. President Donald Trump issued an unexpected ultimatum to Russia. He declared that the Kremlin had no more than 10 to 12 days (until approximately Aug. 8, 2025) to make tangible progress toward ending the war in Ukraine. Should Moscow fail to comply, Trump warned that President Vladimir Putin would face a sweeping package of economic sanctions and severe trade restrictions. This escalation came on the heels of prolonged diplomatic stagnation and Trump’s increasingly vocal frustration with Russia’s continued military operations.   Subsequently, on July 31, 2025, former Russian President and current Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev responded with a pointed and ominous message via his Telegram channel. In his remarks, he invoked the “Dead Hand”—Russia’s semi-automated nuclear retaliation system designed to launch a retaliatory strike even in the event of a complete decapitation of the nation’s leadership.   In response, President Trump ordered the deployment of two U.S. nuclear submarines to strategic positions, framing the move as a necessary precaution in the face of what he described as “extraordinarily dangerous” nuclear threats. Notably, he refrained from specifying whether the submarines were nuclear-powered only or also nuclear-armed—introducing deliberate strategic ambiguity and reinforcing the doctrine of pre-emptive deterrence through calibrated uncertainty.   What renders this sequence of events particularly significant is that the confrontation did not remain confined to the U.S. and Russia. Its repercussions quickly extended to India, which was thrust into the geopolitical crossfire. On July 31, the Trump administration announced the imposition of a 25% tariff on all Indian exports to the United States, accompanied by threats of further penalties targeting Indian firms that continue to purchase Russian crude oil or engage in defence cooperation with Moscow. The rationale behind this punitive action lies in New Delhi’s deepening energy relationship with Russia.   Although the Indian government has not officially announced any suspension of contracts with Russian suppliers, discreet directives were reportedly issued to state-owned refiners instructing them to explore alternative sources in the global spot market. This pivot has begun to materialize reflecting New Delhi’s attempt to maintain equilibrium between preserving its strategic autonomy and mitigating mounting U.S. pressure.   Yet the broader implications of this crisis extend well beyond geopolitical brinkmanship. What is unfolding is a systemic shock to the global order—one that is reverberating through energy markets, food security systems, arms trade corridors, and supply chains. The consequences will not be distributed evenly: while some Middle Eastern states stand to benefit from surging demand and price shifts, others may face acute vulnerabilities due to trade disruptions, inflationary pressures, or capital flight.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will convene Israel's Security Cabinet on Aug. 05, 2025 to approve plans for a full military takeover of the Gaza Strip, marking a critical escalation in the conflict with Hamas. The proposal, however, faced strong opposition from within the Israeli military and from hostage families, who raised serious concerns about the humanitarian impact and operational risks. While the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) already controls around 75% of Gaza, Netanyahu pushed to expand military operations to cover the entire territory, including densely populated areas believed to harbour hostages—a plan opposed by IDF Chief of Staff Lt Gen. Eyal Zamir. This decision came after ceasefire and hostage negotiations collapsed, with Netanyahu stressing the objectives of defeating Hamas, securing the release of hostages, and neutralising Gaza as a future threat to Israel.   In a dramatic development, Netanyahu cancelled a planned visit by Lt Gen. Zamir to Washington upon briefing him on the new direction and accelerating strategic shifts. Zamir explicitly rejected the proposed plan, threatening resignation if it were approved. The military’s reservations centred on fears for the hostages’ lives, particularly in areas such as Deir al-Balah that had not been fully “cleansed” of Hamas fighters. Additionally, IDF leadership expressed concerns about the erosion of the army’s combat capabilities, citing manpower shortages after nearly two years of continuous conflict, thereby urging a more cautious containment strategy that would exert pressure on Hamas without engaging in a protracted and expansive occupation.

In 2023 a sobering milestone was met, the highest number of wildfires in the European Union (EU) since tracking began in 2000 by the European Forest Fire Information System. More than 500,000 hectares of land were burned, an area equivalent to half the size of Cyprus. The situation worsened in 2024, with wildfire-related fatalities rising sharply to 437, compared to 263 deaths in 2023.   Research consistently points to climate change as a primary driver behind this growing crisis. Not only is it increasing the scale of land burned, but it's also intensifying individual fires, extending fire seasons beyond the traditional summer months, and triggering blazes in regions previously untouched by such disasters. As this escalating threat edges closer to the Middle East, the pressing question remains: will the region be prepared, or caught dangerously off guard?

In a fast-paced world driven by technological advances, the global landscape is being reshaped by the rapid rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI), a technology that is playing a vital role in bringing in major economic shifts, unleashing a new era of GDP growth. One of the most active regions concerning AI integration is the Middle East, a region not only observing or keeping up, rather revolutionizing this integration as governments across the region harness the power of AI to reshape their policies, implement national strategies, attract smarter investments while powerfully reconstructing their futures. Such adaptation has already borne fruit, as different economies in the region became more agile and dynamic, systems evolved to operate more efficiently and smarter, resulting in providing better services to their respective populations.   Despite the rapid progress and fast growth of AI in the Middle East, the region still faces a set of challenges, including the lack of properly trained individuals and the constant need of innovative solutions and new ways to narrow this gap. On the other hand, the region lacks legislative framework to regulate the use of AI in a fair and ethical manner. While a growing need for sustainable infrastructure development underlines the fact that more work is still required, overcoming these obstacles and challenges will lead to unlock the region’s full potential, overcome competition and become a major player in the AI world globally.

With the fall of Bashar al-Assad's regime in December 2024, Syria entered a pivotal political turning point, ushering the country into a new phase. Ahmad al-Sharaa assumed the role of interim president, and this transitional period has been defined by intense efforts to restore security and stability, unify the divided armed factions, and address the growing humanitarian needs nationwide. Against this shifting backdrop, the southern governorate of As-Suwayda, home to a Druze majority, emerged as a strategic hot spot of tension. Recent military developments in the region have taken on significant dimensions, potentially impacting the future of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the country's northeast.

As-Suwayda has emerged as a profoundly complex arena amid the sweeping transformations reshaping Syria following the fall of the Assad regime and the formation of a new centralized transitional government. Within this volatile context, calls for self-determination from segments of the local Druze community have gained traction.   There are four critical fault lines worth exploring: the acute internal fragmentation of the Druze polity; the ideological and constitutional dissonance between local autonomy demands and the centralized architecture of the new Syrian state; the near-total economic collapse of the province; and the intensity of regional entanglement that constrains meaningful sovereignty.

This Pulse survey, conducted in June 2025, explores perceptions of nuclear threats in the region, including the likelihood of nuclear events, levels of preparedness, and the need for collective emergency response. The findings offer insights into how geopolitical uncertainty is shaping public concerns about nuclear risks.     When asked about the likelihood of a nuclear event occurring in the Middle East within the next 10 years, the majority of respondents placed the probability between high (41%) and moderate (41%). Only a small minority believed such an event is unlikely (16%) or ruled it out entirely (3.1%). Indicating that a potential nuclear event is no longer seen as a distant possibility, but rather as a plausible risk shaped by current geopolitical dynamics and regional instability.     In response to the survey question on the most likely cause of a nuclear fallout event, participants felt that a nuclear war was the most likely cause (46%) over a nuclear reactor malfunction (38%). While historical incidents suggest that reactor malfunctions have been more frequent, respondents seem more preoccupied with the threat of nuclear war, likely influenced by ongoing geopolitical uncertainty in the wake of recent conflicts, including the now-concluded Iran-Israel War. Cyberattacks, although technically plausible, were considered less likely (13%), again perhaps due to comparison with the more immediate risks of war or malfunction. Meanwhile, terrorist attacks were seen as the least likely (4.2%) cause, reinforcing the perception that threats from rival states pose a greater nuclear risk than those from non-state actors.     When asked whether the Middle East should establish a joint nuclear emergency system, the majority of respondents (91%) supported regional cooperation, reflecting concerns over rising tensions and the limited capacity of some states to respond independently. A small minority (9%), however, opposed a fully inclusive system and favoured cooperation among select countries. Suggesting that those respondents perceive certain states as more vulnerable, or more responsible, than others, implying a belief in differentiated eligibility for participation. Ultimately, this response pattern may also highlight underlying perceptions of disparity among regional states and a reluctance to include perceived "free riders" in collective security efforts.     In response to whether the Middle East is prepared for a nuclear malfunction or cyberattack, the majority of participants (76%) expressed a clear sense of unpreparedness. With remaining respondents believing that the Middle East is somewhat (12%) or fully (12%) prepared. The strong emphasis on lack of preparedness reflects a prevailing sense of concern or fear among respondents. This sentiment is further reinforced by earlier responses, particularly the widespread support for establishing a joint nuclear emergency system, indicating that many view regional cooperation as essential to compensate for individual state limitations in crisis response.     When asked about the region’s preparedness for a potential nuclear war, an even larger share of respondents (87%) indicated that the Middle East is not equipped to handle such a scenario. Compared to the previous question on nuclear malfunctions and cyberattacks, the heightened perception of unpreparedness here reveals which category of threats weighs more heavily on respondents’ minds. This contrast suggests that nuclear war, in particular, is seen as a more pressing and dominant concern, likely due to its catastrophic scale and links to ongoing geopolitical instability in the region.   PULSE is a data-driven series that visualizes public sentiment on trending regional and global issues, curated and edited by the Al Habtoor Research Centre Early Warning Programme’s Senior Researchers Habiba Diaaeldin and Ahmed El Saeid.   The findings presented are based on data collected through social media polls and online forms distributed via email. While efforts are made to ensure a broad and diverse sample, the results reflect the views and opinions of respondents and should not be interpreted as representative of the entire population or Al Habtoor Research Centre.

The inauguration of Donald Trump as the 47th president of the United States for his second term took place on Jan. 20, 2025. Trump outlined a wide-ranging agenda that blends traditional conservative values. Notably, he signed 26 executive orders on Inauguration Day, which is the highest number by any U.S. president to sign on that day. Trump’s second-term agenda focuses mainly under the banner of “Making America First,” “retribution,” and “law and order.” He aimed at aggressively reshaping the Federal Government, restoring hardline policies from his first term, and shifting America’s global role through protectionism and reduced international engagement.   Trump had emphasised avoiding foreign wars and promoting a non-interventionist foreign policy, focusing instead on border security and economic growth. He opposed “endless wars” and advocated reducing the U.S. military presence abroad. He repeatedly stated that the U.S. should avoid costly wars in the Middle East that lack clear American interests, using slogans like “We are not the world’s policeman” and “End the endless wars.” He sharply criticised previous administrations for prolonged military engagements in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria. However, despite these promises made during his 2024 campaign, Trump’s actions in office have diverged significantly from his non-interventionist stance.  

Recent military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities have reignited global concerns over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Over 12 days, the region witnessed a direct military confrontation between Iran and Israel, accompanied by U.S. airstrikes on critical sites in Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. Iran responded by launching retaliatory attacks on the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.   While Washington declared the “complete destruction” of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, subsequent assessments suggest these operations fell short of their strategic goals. Key elements of the Fordow facility, including vital centrifuge systems, remained partially operational, preserving a significant portion of Iran’s nuclear capability.   Growing uncertainty surrounds the fate of Iran’s highly enriched uranium, particularly after the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that approximately 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% are unaccounted for—a volume theoretically sufficient to produce multiple nuclear warheads. Iranian authorities acknowledged relocating this material to “secure locations” ahead of the strikes. However, Western intelligence sources indicate that locating and neutralising these hidden stockpiles through military means remains exceedingly difficult.   This ambiguity intensifies the risks of nuclear proliferation and grants Tehran a potent strategic asset in any future diplomatic negotiations, while keeping the spectre of renewed military escalation ever-present.   Given these circumstances, Iran’s nuclear programme appears to have endured only a temporary disruption. Tehran retains the technical expertise and human infrastructure necessary to reconstruct its facilities and resume enrichment efforts. As such, the unknown status of the enriched uranium now emerges as a critical variable that could shape the region’s security landscape. Should Iran revive its nuclear activities—or should external actors attempt to strike these undisclosed caches—the result could be a new flashpoint in the ongoing confrontation between Iran and Israel.   This analysis examines the disparity between political declarations proclaiming the end of Iran’s nuclear threat and the ground realities that suggest its persistence. It explores the strategic implications of enriched uranium remaining outside international oversight, as well as the broader consequences for regional stability and the evolution of conflict in the Middle East.

Sports diplomacy is not something new. It can be traced back to the ancient Olympic Games, when Greek city-states suspended conflicts to compete peacefully. The modern Olympic movement, revived in 1896, was based on similar principles of fostering global unity. However, sports have also been used to serve political agendas, such as the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, during which Nazi Germany turned the games into a propaganda tool. In other cases, sports played an important diplomatic role to ease tensions between countries. The Ping-Pong diplomacy, for instance, facilitated communication between the U.S. and China in 1971, which later paved the way for President Richard Nixon’s historic visit in 1972. This analysis explores how sports diplomacy contributes to easing political tensions between countries.