Early Warning

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.

In the wake of the recent NATO summit, European leaders have committed to a landmark pledge: raising defence spending to 5% of GDP. Hailed by its backers as a historic move, the agreement reflects a sharp shift in European threat perception, driven not only by Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine but also by the renewed pressure from Washington under the return of the Trump presidency. The "Trump effect" has reignited long-standing fears over the reliability of U.S. security guarantees, pushing Europe to take on greater defence responsibilities.   But while the pledge signals a tougher European posture, it raises pressing concerns. Can Europe realistically meet such ambitious targets without undermining the very democratic model it seeks to defend? As defence budgets grow, many fear this could come at the cost of welfare, social cohesion, and democratic checks, exposing the continent to a deeper risk: the creeping militarisation of European politics and the erosion of its democratic dividend.

Having lost the presidential election and both chambers of Congress, it should have been expected that the Democratic Party would reflect on why voters rejected the party’s policies, platform, and candidates, and rally to face a second and far more empowered Trump administration that is aggressively dismantling the core of the Democratic Party’s achievements.   Instead, Democrats seem to have lost themselves, mired in an internal struggle over the party’s identity and future direction and unable to agree on what it truly means to be a Democrat in the Trump era.   These rifts reflect the fundamentally contrasting visions of what the party should stand for: incrementalism versus systemic change, compromise versus confrontation, electability versus principle. Without a unifying narrative or leadership capable of bridging these divides, the Democrats risk remaining paralyzed at pivotal moment in American history.

Since its establishment in 1945, the United Nations (U.N.) has played a central role in solidifying international cooperation and promoting global peace and security. However, the U.N.’s ability to fulfil its duties depends on financial contributions from member states. As an entity, the U.N. has several budgets, including the regular budget (covers political missions, the General Assembly workings, Security Council, human rights, and legal affairs), peacekeeping budget (covers the U.N. peacekeeping missions in areas of conflicts), and voluntary budgets (covers the activities of the UNHCR, WHO, WFP and other similar agencies). As advertised by the U.N., the organization is facing a huge financial deficit that can jeopardize its global role, thereby affecting global security.   Moreover, the U.N.’s financial deficit could have several implications, including worsening humanitarian crises, allowing regional organisations to fill the gap left by the U.N., and jeopardising the global order it has sustained following the end of the Cold War.

On June 22, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that, using its “bunker buster” bomb, the United States had launched an attack on Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility. While Trump declared the strike a success, the complete destruction of the facility remains unconfirmed. This raises a critical question: will Trump consider using a tactical nuclear weapon to ensure its elimination?   Tactical nuclear weapons, unlike strategic ones, are smaller in yield and designed for targeted use on the battlefield rather than for widespread destruction. Though less devastating in scale, their use would carry serious regional and global repercussions.

Amid the intensifying confrontation between Iran and Israel throughout 2025, the prospect of a direct strike against Israel’s Dimona nuclear facility has moved from a remote possibility to a plausible escalation scenario. As military operations increasingly target strategic infrastructure on both sides, the regional system faces the risk of a threshold breach—one that could trigger not only military and political consequences but also a multidimensional crisis involving radioactive contamination, mass displacement, and economic collapse across multiple states.   While Israel would undoubtedly bear the immediate brunt—facing mass civilian evacuations, irreversible environmental degradation in the Negev, and the paralysis of its agricultural and tourism sectors—the ripple effects would extend far beyond its borders.   Jordan’s border regions and agricultural zones in the Jordan Valley could face contamination and humanitarian strain, potentially requiring the evacuation of tens of thousands of people. Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula and northern Suez region could suffer fallout exposure, disrupting global shipping through the canal and threatening the Red Sea tourism corridor. Saudi Arabia’s northern provinces, including areas tied to its Vision 2030 megaprojects, could face both environmental and demographic disruption.

The war between Iran and Israel is arguably a war of survival for the regime in Iran. Attacking Iran seemed to be a logical step for Israel after almost destroying its arms of proxies in the region. the regime, which stands on three pillars, namely, its conventional missile arsenal, its extensive network of regional proxy forces, and its nuclear program, is facing a war of attrition that might eventually end the very survival of the regime. The fall of the regime in Iran goes beyond mere regime change, rather, it is considered a state collapse.   The collapse of the Iranian state would have dire consequences for the region. However, the possibility of the regime surviving remains a significant scenario. While the fall of Iran is widely regarded as a regional catastrophe, its continued survival, particularly with Tehran asserting itself as a regional superpower, could prove even more destabilizing for Israel and its allies. Both outcomes carry profound regional and global implications, signalling a transformation in Middle Eastern geopolitics. The pressing question is not whether change is coming, but rather: what will the new Middle East look like?

On June 13, 2025, Israel launched a surprise offensive against Iran, striking nuclear facilities, missile bases, air defenses, and targeting military leaders and nuclear scientists. In response, Iran retaliated the same evening with firing over 150 ballistic missiles and 100 drones at Tel Aviv and Haifa.   Israel and Iran have continued to trade blows and there are no significant signs of a potential slowdown in the conflict between the long-time adversaries. The spectre that looms over both is that of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has gone from negotiating with Iran for a nuclear deal to pushing for its “unconditional surrender” in the span of a week. as the U.S. simultaneously repositions its military assets to potentially strike Iran.

The Strait of Hormuz – a narrow, indispensable artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil and a third of its liquefied natural gas (LNG) flows– stands on a cliff. As geopolitical tensions intensify across the Middle East, fuelled by escalating Iran-Israel tensions and the shadow of direct United States (U.S.) involvement, the once-unthinkable threat of its closure looms larger than ever with Iran’s threat to close or block the Strait. In spite of the catastrophic global implications of such an act, the volatile depths of this potential crisis will be explored, unravelling the motives that could push Iran to choke this global lifeline, exposing the monumental security and geopolitical fallout, and revealing the catastrophic economic shockwave that would consume nations far beyond the region.

Global trade tensions, supply chain disruptions, and skyrocketing costs are some of the unprecedented effects caused by U.S. president Donald Trump’s second term aggressive tariff policies. Tariff policies' impact goes beyond being just hypothetical, with real-time predictions and forecasts that more severe effects could follow; the global GDP is expected to slowly grow by only 2.2% in 2025, while the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has warned of a possible global recession, given that growth slips below 2.5%. Not only the UNCTAD but also the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has downgraded its outlook for the global economy to 2.8% in 2025 and made a significant revision for the U.S. economy lowering its 2025 growth projection to 1.8% in April from 2.7% in January. Adding to these concerns, the World Trade Organization has already highlighted a sharp deterioration in global trade prospects, with world merchandise trade now expected to decline by 0.2% in 2025, nearly three percentage points lower than previous forecasts.   The current instabilities go beyond the economic aspect; they also affect the U.S.’s international alliances and add additional burdens to households, many of whom are delaying major life decisions. A pressing question amid recession fears arises: What are the impacts on a global scale in the event of a U.S. economic collapse? Given the leading position the U.S. plays as the world’s largest economy and the leading issuer of primary reserve currency, such a downturn would trigger a financial disaster of unparalleled magnitude. Essentially, if the U.S.’s economy falls, the world’s economy falls with it. Imagine waking up a few years from now, pulling out your phone, and seeing the headline: "U.S. Economy in Freefall: Markets Collapsed Overnight." It begins as a distant rumble, as if a story is taking place somewhere else. But then you go to get your morning coffee, and the price has tripled. Your investment app reveals that your life savings have been devastated. Overseas, factories that rely on American consumers come to a standstill, leaving entire villages jobless. The USD, once the cornerstone of global banking, has collapsed, provoking wild currency wars as governments try to preserve their own. Suddenly, that far-off catastrophe isn't so far away; it's emptying your wallet, increasing your grocery cost, and endangering your basic existence. This isn't just a headline; it's a chilling, global economic winter, its icy grip felt in every home, on every continent, for generations. Are we truly prepared for such a cataclysm?

China and Taiwan have had a complex relationship. Taiwan was once a part of China, following the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the government of the Republic of China retreated to Taiwan, while the People's Republic of China established itself on the mainland. For decades, Taiwan was recognized by many countries as the legitimate government of China, even holding China's seat at the United Nations until 1971, when it was replaced by the People's Republic of China. While China pledges to reunify Taiwan, even by force, the latter depends on the United States to deter any potential Chinese invasion.   Given the current geopolitical changes in the world, there is a possibility that China could invade Taiwan, exploiting the West’s emphasis on the Russia-Ukraine War.

The recent U.S.-brokered ceasefire between India and Pakistan, following four nerve-racking days of escalating military exchanges, offered a moment of reprieve from the brink of what many feared could become an all-out conflict between the two nuclear-armed neighbors. Missiles and drones crossed borders, tensions were sky-high, and the language from both capitals was increasingly aggressive. President Trump's sudden announcement of a truce, while welcomed, underscored the inherent fragility of the situation. Amid celebrations in India and Pakistan, and self-congratulations in Washington, Kashmir endured another night of violence, with both sides claiming violations. This temporary calm exists against a backdrop of deep-seated historical grievances, unresolved territorial disputes, evolving nuclear doctrines, and a complex interplay of internal and external pressures. The critical question now is not just how the ceasefire was achieved, but whether it can hold, and what the consequences would be if this fragile truce were to collapse.