Publications

Iran’s uranium enrichment dilemma constitutes the central axis of the ongoing nuclear dispute, where technical considerations intersect with imperatives of national sovereignty, and where international legal frameworks collide with the strategic logic of deterrence. From the perspective of the Islamic Republic, the possession of a full nuclear fuel cycle—including domestic enrichment—is not merely a technical aspiration but an inherent sovereign right enshrined in Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Yet, within Iran’s political consciousness, this “right” transcends legalistic interpretation; it has become a symbolic pillar of national autonomy and a manifestation of defiance against what is perceived as Western hegemony.   Conversely, the U.S. and its allies view the same enrichment capability as a direct gateway to weaponization. The centrifuge-based architecture of Iran’s program enables, with little more than a political decision, a rapid transition from low-enriched uranium to weapons-grade fissile material within a matter of weeks. These concerns escalated significantly following the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) May 2025 report confirming that Iran had amassed over 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%—an amount theoretically sufficient to produce three to five nuclear weapons, should the enrichment level be increased to 90%, without requiring any additional infrastructure.   Iran’s historical experience—from its exclusion from the Eurodif consortium in 1979 to the collapse of the Tehran Research Reactor fuel deal in 2009—has deeply entrenched the belief among Iran’s ruling elite that reliance on external fuel guarantees is neither secure nor sustainable. As such, any negotiated settlement that requires Tehran to abandon domestic enrichment is perceived as a fundamental affront to its sovereign dignity and strategic autonomy.   Thus, the essence of the conflict lies not in centrifuge counts or enrichment levels per se, but in the deeply embedded political architecture of mutual distrust. A sustainable resolution cannot be achieved without a broader security framework that redefines Iran’s position within both the regional and global order.   This study adopts a multi-layered approach to the enrichment dilemma, treating it not as a narrowly technical issue but as a strategic contest between sovereign entitlement and non-proliferation imperatives. It proceeds along four main analytical axes: the technical properties of enrichment, the political and strategic motivations driving Iran’s position, the security calculus of Western powers, and the viability of proposed diplomatic frameworks. The study ultimately affirms that any lasting agreement must emerge from a comprehensive reconfiguration of Iran’s relationship with the international system.

The United States started putting sanctions on Syria as early as 1979, mostly because Syria was labelled as a State Sponsor of Terrorism (SST). The first designation was based on Syria's military occupation of Lebanon and its support for groups like Hezbollah that the government paid for. This early policy took a harsh and threatening stance against a government that was seen as hostile and supportive of non-state actors that were seen as a threat to U.S. interests.   After the Syrian conflict started in 2011, the U.S. greatly increased its sanctions against the Assad government. The goal of these more extensive measures was to stop the Syrian government from using violence against its people and to encourage political changes that could get to the bottom of the conflict. This was a big change from only focussing on counter-terrorism to a wider agenda that included human rights and changing the behaviour of the regime, with some elements of coercive diplomacy.   The end of Bashar al-Assad's rule in early December 2024 marks a major change in Syria's politics. This event changed the main goal of the long-standing U.S. sanctions, which were mostly aimed at the now-deposed government.   In May 2025, during a trip to Saudi Arabia, U.S. President Donald Trump made a big announcement: he would lift sanctions on Syria. He said this would "give them a chance at greatness." Many people see this announcement as a "historic development" that has "major potential to improve living conditions" and "support the Syrian political transition." The goal is to make the area more stable and improve Syria's economic prospects after years of being held back by harsh international sanctions. This paper looks at the United States' sanctions against Syria in depth, putting the recent change in policy in the context of its history and the law.

In a significant escalatory move, Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, has notified the UN Secretary-General in writing that UNRWA must cease its operations and vacate its premises by January 30, 2025. This ultimatum follows Israel’s enactment of a law last October banning the agency’s activities within its territory, including occupied East Jerusalem. The decision is rooted in Israel’s allegations that UNRWA has been infiltrated by Hamas, with claims that some of its employees were involved in the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks.   This paper examines the evolving and contentious relationship between Israel and UNRWA. It also explores potential U.S. intentions to dismantle the agency, particularly in light of Donald Trump’s return to power and his recent remarks regarding the displacement of Gaza’s population and the repercussions of this ban.

Hezbollah's involvement in the Syrian Civil War has significantly bolstered its military capabilities and strategic positioning against Israel. The war served as an invaluable training ground, providing Hezbollah fighters with extensive combat experience and allowing them to test and refine their tactics in real-world scenarios. This experience proved crucial in enhancing their proficiency in asymmetric warfare, a critical aspect of their confrontations with the technologically superior Israeli military.   Furthermore, the Syrian conflict solidified Hezbollah's alliance with Iran, which provided vital military support and resources. This included advanced weaponry, training, and logistical assistance, significantly enhancing Hezbollah's operational readiness.  Iran's backing also enabled Hezbollah to establish a stronger presence in the region, providing strategic depth and allowing it to operate more effectively against Israel while countering Israeli influence in Lebanon and the broader Levant.   The war also forced Hezbollah to adapt and evolve its military doctrine.  The group adopted more sophisticated tactics, incorporating urban warfare strategies and integrating advanced technologies like drones and precision-guided munitions. These innovations, born out of necessity on the Syrian battlefield, have better equipped Hezbollah to counter Israel's military advantages.  Moreover, the prolonged conflict forced Hezbollah to develop sophisticated logistical and operational planning capabilities, including a robust supply chain that can withstand Israeli disruptions.   On the other hand, this intervention led to the exposure of the party and made it vulnerable to infiltration, which caused the party to lose its hard power against Israel and its soft power within Lebanon.

In an era marked by rapid transformations and mounting threats, it is no longer sufficient to merely bear witness to disasters after they unfold. The imperative now is to cultivate anticipatory vision and to act decisively before the alarm is sounded. It is against this backdrop that the Al Habtoor Research Centre presents this edition of Futurescapes, titled Noah’s Ark, as both an early warning signal and a call for preparedness before time runs out.   The choice of the title Noah’s Ark is far from arbitrary. Just as the ark once symbolised salvation amid an all-encompassing flood, this publication aspires to serve as a vessel of knowledge—an intellectual ark—that carries within it an early awareness of looming risks and a strategic foresight capable of confronting them and adapting accordingly. This edition is a deliberate effort to transcend reactive responses and instead foster a proactive culture rooted in anticipatory planning and resilience-building.   This work forms part of a broader series of periodic reports issued by the Al Habtoor Research Centre, an independent Arab think tank committed to a forward-looking approach. The Centre places strategic emphasis on early warning mechanisms and the anticipation of major threats that may affect the Arab world—whether stemming from natural phenomena, political and technological developments, or the evolving dynamics of regional and global conflict.   In this issue, we undertake an unconventional intellectual journey, wherein we shed light on categories of threats that have not received sufficient attention from think tanks across the Arab world, despite the fact that they carry genuine existential risks. Our analysis does not confine itself to the commonly addressed domains of security and political threats; rather, it ventures further to explore issues that rarely find their way onto the Arab research agenda.   Among these are volcanic eruptions, asteroids, solar storms, and threats emerging from outer space—phenomena that could pose serious dangers to life on Earth in general, and to the Arab region in particular. We also examine nuclear risks, whether arising from warfare, radioactive leakage incidents, or potential scenarios involving cyberattacks on nuclear facilities.   Moreover, this issue addresses pandemics and global outbreaks—not solely from the perspective of disease transmission, but in terms of their structural impacts on economies and societies, as well as their linkages to transformations in the global order.   This publication does not claim to possess definitive answers; rather, it aspires to serve as a first step toward cultivating a collective awareness that is more attuned to risk and more capable of strategic preparedness. Knowledge, when acquired early, becomes a form of power. And foresight, when exercised with precision, becomes a tool for salvation.   We present this work at a critical juncture, with the hope that it will contribute to opening new windows for dialogue and planning and that it may serve as an entry point for broader Arab cooperation in the realms of risk monitoring and the development of effective early warning systems.   The information presented in this publication reflects the situation as of May 2025. Please note that developments may occur rapidly, which could render some of the details outdated or no longer current since that date.

At this pivotal juncture, the MENA region stands at a critical crossroads. The region is experiencing a decisive moment that will shape the future dynamics of inter-country relations and regional security, which has faced significant threats in recent years. This publication, prepared by a team of experienced researchers at the renowned Al Habtoor Research Centre, endeavours to forecast the Middle East's impending challenges. It aims to delineate the region's comprehensive political, economic, and security landscape over the past years.   Through a series of incisive analyses, we address the geo-economic challenges and their profound impact on the future of the Middle East and North Africa. These analyses are situated within the context of the sweeping transformations occurring in the global system, a system characterised by economic conflicts that both influence and are influenced by ongoing security and military escalations. These conflicts have altered the global power map and are anticipated to significantly reshape the current world order, making our research all the more pertinent.   Moreover, we examine the risks engendered by the prevailing state of uncertainty, which threatens nations' economic prospects and disrupts critical and vital trade corridors and routes such as the Suez Canal, Bab El Mandab, and the Strait of Hormuz. These corridors are indispensable to global energy security and international trade. The manifestation of these threats is evident in the tensions and conflicts we have observed in the Red Sea, which have heightened fears of potential disruptions escalating into broader military confrontations.   The publication further delves into the new frontiers of warfare, particularly the transformations imposed by cyberspace on the nature and strategies of conflicts. These changes have redefined armament and deterrence methods, yet the region remains significantly unprepared for these evolving threats. At a time when the Middle East is increasingly becoming an attractive target for cyber-attacks and unconventional warfare, there is an urgent and pressing need to enhance preparedness for such confrontations.   In the region’s prevailing instability and escalating political and security tensions, which have precipitated severe humanitarian crises, the migration challenge has surfaced as a critical determinant of the region’s future. Prominent among these tensions are the civil war in Sudan, the ongoing instability in Lebanon, and the conflict in Gaza. Additionally, the continuous deterioration of internal situations in Syria, Libya, Iraq, and Yemen has posed significant challenges for neighbouring countries. These conflicts have profoundly affected migration dynamics in the region, resulting in substantial security and political ramifications that are expected to unfold in the coming period. The migration issues also present vulnerabilities and potential entry points for external agendas to influence aid-receiving nations.   In this context, the region's climate change challenges also invite external actors to impose their agendas. These actors often condition their support and assistance for addressing climate change on political and security changes, thereby imposing different priorities on the region's countries and threatening its stability.   Ultimately, this publication represents the culmination of extensive brainstorming and research conducted over an extended period by our dedicated team alongside numerous experts and specialists. Our goal has been to produce a structured forecast for the future of a region mired in chaos, which inherently complicates the creation of definitive predictive models for the coming years. At Al Habtoor Research Centre, we are committed to illuminating the often-overlooked areas, especially those pertaining to anticipated crises and potential risks. This publication is part of a series of research outputs aimed at contributing to a more stable and prosperous future for a region beset by threats.

Amidst the intricate tapestry of our contemporary world, we find ourselves living in a “world of risks” and existential threats that are escalating faster than our capacity for response and remedy. As a result of our tendency to fixate on addressing the ever-growing number of issues that our societies face, we often neglect the importance of envisioning future risks and their potential consequences for human survival and growth.   The significance of future studies and early warning systems transcends the mere scope of risk mitigation and preparedness. It encompasses an ethical obligation to the forthcoming generations an obligation to plant the seeds for a future we ourselves may not see, but one we bestow as an enduring legacy. This form of responsibility, some may even say “altruism”, manifests clearly in the work of those who are dedicated to this field of research. As we recognise the pitfalls of short-sightedness, especially in recent years where questions about the future are infinite, we also acknowledge this as an opportunity to study and improve our approach to the future.   In this inaugural issue of Futurescapes, Al Habtoor Research Centre unveils a meticulously crafted “early warning” on the looming spectre of misusing artificial intelligence capabilities. Within the pages of this publication, we have committed our unwavering focus to confront this critical turning point spurred by expanding technological capacities and the potential relinquishment of human control over these very capacities. In an era where scientists and scholars are impelled to develop AI systems that transcend their conventional roles of aiding and empowering humanity, a growing unease takes root: the potential for these systems to transcend their limitations and penetrate the intricate realms of emotion and distinctly human tasks. Thus, an alternate trajectory unfurls — one that goes beyond traditional automation, aspiring to metamorphose humans into remotely guided automatons.   Within the pages of this issue, we delve into the transformation of robots into entities evocative of human traits and the simultaneous mechanisation of human functions. Furthermore, we explore other pivotal themes, venturing into uncharted landscapes and unconventional dimensions to imagine different potential futures in the new era of AI.

The threat of nuclear weapons, once seemingly receding with the end of the Cold War, has resurged with alarming intensity. A renewed nuclear arms race and a dangerous erosion of the norms and treaties that have, for decades, helped prevent the unthinkable are being witnessed by the world. Since February 2022, Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the accompanying rhetoric—including overt and subtly veiled threats to employ nuclear weapons—have broken the post-Cold War taboo. Russia's nuclear weapon posture in Belarus increases tensions even more and normalises the debate about nuclear war. The invasion has had a ripple effect globally, with countries like South Korea, Germany, and Poland expressing renewed interest in nuclear deterrence, either through their own programmes or by hosting US nuclear weapons. Poland's consideration of joining Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey as a host for US nuclear weapons highlights this dangerous trend. Meanwhile, North Korea's continued, unchecked development of its nuclear arsenal and the persistent nuclear belligerence between India and Pakistan serve as concrete examples of the ongoing global threat.   The nuclear shadow over the Middle East has deepened in the aftermath of the October 7 events, which sharply re-escalated regional tensions and exposed the fragility of the existing security order. As Israel’s military operations in Gaza risk broadening into a wider regional confrontation, concerns about the potential use and further proliferation of nuclear weapons have intensified. The director general of the IAEA has recently warned that the intensification of hostilities in the region could acquire “nuclear dimensions,” underscoring the urgent need for full-scope safeguards and renewed diplomatic engagement to prevent further escalation. In this increasingly volatile context, the nuclear issue remains deeply intertwined with broader political and security dynamics, raising the spectre of a dangerous tipping point in regional proliferation. With the renewed conflict between Israel and Iran, talk of nuclear targets and their impact on the region has returned.   Against this backdrop, this paper examines the various forms of nuclear threats and assesses the vulnerability of selected case study countries. These cases—Egypt, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, and Jordan—were chosen based on their susceptibility to nuclear disasters, primarily determined by the presence of nuclear facilities that could be potential sources of risk. Geopolitical significance was also a key factor in the selection process. The threats are grouped into two main categories: the first relates to the dangers posed by nuclear warfare, while the second focuses on risks associated with nuclear or radioactive leaks. Each scenario is further broken down into sub-scenarios that analyse the projected impacts on the selected cases, including estimated fatalities and casualties. The primary criterion guiding case selection and analysis is human loss, with specific cities chosen based on population density, and consequences evaluated accordingly.   By evaluating projected impacts—including human loss and disruption to critical infrastructure—this paper aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of nuclear vulnerability in these key states. In doing so, it highlights how the evolving nuclear landscape in the Middle East region is shaped not only by technological and strategic factors but also by the interplay of domestic ambitions and external pressures. The findings underscore the urgent need for robust safeguards, regional cooperation, and international engagement to mitigate the growing risks posed by nuclear weapons and technology in an increasingly unstable global environment.

In George Orwell's classic 1984, his world was held together by unending war: In the book, messages of hate and reasons to fear were broadcast each day to encourage fearful, slavish masses to rail against an imaginary enemy rather than their actual masters.   US and British geo-strategists have historically been masters of manipulation, redrawing the map of the world to suit Western economic, geopolitical, and military interests, particularly in the MENA region. Their detractors are convinced that their broad goal is Western domination of the area via surrogates and partners such as Israel and Iran (via the back door) to retain control over natural resources and waterways while ensuring those resources do not fall into the hands of competitors such as China and Russia. A school of thought contends that they manufacture sectarian conflicts on the principle of “divide and rule,” creating tensions that justify the installation of military bases and fuel the military-industrial complex through arms sales.   A 2008 paper titled America’s Divide and Rule Strategies in the Middle East by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya highlights US efforts to create divisions within Middle Eastern and Central Asian populations through ethno-cultural, religious, sectarian, national, and political differences. According to this perspective, sectarian divides—particularly between Sunni and Shia Muslims—have been deliberately cultivated to weaken regional unity and facilitate geopolitical control.   The Iraq War (2003) and its aftermath further exacerbated these sectarian tensions. The dismantling of Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated Ba'athist regime and the empowerment of Shia and Kurdish groups created a power vacuum, fueling sectarian violence. Groups like Al-Qaeda in Iraq (later ISIS) thrived under these conditions, exploiting sectarian grievances. The redrawing of Iraq’s internal boundaries, particularly the establishment of the Kurdistan Regional Government, further solidified ethnic divisions. Toby Dodge, in Inventing Iraq: The Failure of Nation Building and a Road to Peace, argues that the US approach to state-building in Iraq inadvertently deepened these fault lines.   Similarly, US involvement in the Syrian Civil War (2011–2024), through support for various opposition groups, contributed to the country’s fragmentation along ethnic and sectarian lines. The conflict saw the rise of numerous factions, many of which received US backing. The emergence and territorial control of Kurdish-dominated forces in northeastern Syria, supported by the US in the fight against ISIS, created tensions with Arab populations and neighboring Turkey. The conflict has been widely analyzed as having a significant sectarian dimension, with regional powers backing different factions along Sunni-Shia lines.   Middle East expert and author Fred Reed states: “One might be forgiven for surmising that the current thrust of US policy in the Middle East and through the Muslim world is to exacerbate Sunni-Shiite divisions.”   US foreign policy in the region has often been perceived as favoring certain regional powers over others, sometimes along sectarian lines, exacerbating existing tensions. The complex relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia (a Sunni-majority state) and its rivalry with Iran (a Shia-majority state) has frequently been interpreted through this lens, even if US interests are primarily geopolitical. Support for different factions in conflicts like the Yemeni Civil War has similarly been framed within the context of regional sectarian rivalries.   Certain think tanks and policy circles in the US have promoted ideas that emphasize sectarian and ethnic divisions in the Middle East as a way to understand and potentially manage the region. Foreign Policy in Focus columnist Conn Hallinan argues that a major US concern in the Middle East is oil. With two-thirds of US oil expected to be imported by 2020, and 65% of the world's remaining oil reserves located in the Middle East, he suggests that a strategy of “divide and conquer” is aimed at keeping strategic control of these resources. Hallinan also highlights the lucrative nature of ongoing Middle Eastern tensions for the US arms industry, citing that countries like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Oman have spent over $150 billion on arms purchases.   While the significance of oil in US foreign policy has arguably shifted due to increased domestic production and diversification of energy sources, the Middle East remains strategically important for global energy security. A 2024 report from the Council for a Secure America notes that US oil imports from the Middle East have reached a record low, falling below 11% of total imports. However, this shift does not negate the region’s role in global energy markets.   The US continues to maintain strong relationships with key Gulf oil-producing states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE. While policy priorities have expanded beyond securing oil supplies to include counterterrorism, regional stability, and containing rival powers, access to stable energy markets remains a key consideration. Events like the war in Ukraine have further underscored the interconnectedness of global energy markets and the importance of stable Middle Eastern oil production in preventing global price shocks. In fiscal year 2024, US military sales surged, with direct commercial sales rising to $200.8 billion from $157.5 billion in 2023. Government-facilitated arms sales also increased to $117.9 billion. The Middle East remains a significant market for US arms exports, with over $5.5 billion in approved arms sales to Egypt and Morocco alone in December 2024.   The underlying argument of this paper is that beyond the apparent hostilities and rivalries in the region, there exists a covert strategic alliance between Iran, Israel, and the United States. This cooperation manifests in various ways, including indirect coordination in conflict zones, intelligence-sharing, and economic transactions that defy public rhetoric. Despite Iran’s portrayal as a staunch adversary of both the US and Israel, instances of tacit collaboration—such as Iranian oil exports finding their way to markets through indirect channels, US tolerance of Iranian-backed militias in specific contexts, and shared interests in counterbalancing regional actors like Turkey and the Gulf states—suggest a more complex dynamic. This hidden alliance reflects a pragmatic approach to maintaining regional equilibrium, securing strategic interests, and preventing the emergence of truly independent powers that could challenge the existing order.

In today’s volatile political landscape, ceasefires are becoming increasingly relevant. While they are not designed to bring an immediate end to conflicts, they aim to provide a temporary respite in which opposing parties can engage in dialogue and work toward a resolution. Ideally, ceasefires function as transitional phases within ongoing wars, offering the opportunity for negotiation and compromise. However, as a political tool, ceasefires often fail to meet their objectives. Their effectiveness is not simply determined by military action, but by the political will and complex considerations of the parties involved. Ceasefires are heavily influenced by the intentions of the signatories, as not all parties are genuinely committed to ending hostilities. This raises important questions about how we define the success or failure of a ceasefire. If the stated goal is to end the war, yet political agendas remain hidden, the resumption of conflict may not necessarily mean that the ceasefire has failed—it could indicate that one party's objectives were unfulfilled, while the other may have achieved its goals.    Additionally, each ceasefire agreement is unique, shaped by the specific political dynamics at play, including the roles of mediators, guarantees, and the structure of the agreement itself. The Israel-Hamas ceasefire is a striking example of this complexity. While it may appear to be a failure from a broader, collective perspective, it could represent a significant political and military opportunity for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The influence of external actors, such as U.S. President Donald Trump, must also be considered as part of the equation. Ultimately, the fragile truce between Hamas and Israel raises a critical question: Is it merely a political process, or does it reflect a deeper, more strategic calculation that extends beyond the immediate cessation of hostilities?

In April 2025, the Trump administration stunned global markets by announcing a sweeping tariff expansion under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), introducing a flat 10% universal tariff on all imports. This move, framed as a national economic emergency response, immediately triggered global trade uncertainty and diplomatic friction. The policy marked a significant escalation of Trump’s protectionist agenda, signalling a break with multilateralism and targeting long-standing trade imbalances with strategic rivals and allies alike. We found that the United States (U.S.) trade structure is deeply imbalanced, with persistent deficits concentrated in sectors essential to industrial production, such as machinery, electronics, and vehicles. These deficits have exposed the U.S. to retaliatory measures from key trade partners—particularly China, Canada, and the EU—who have calibrated their responses to hit politically and economically sensitive export categories. Tariffs have initiated a multi-channel inflationary shock: direct consumer price increases, rising intermediate input costs, and cascading pressures on logistics and wages. The compounded effect has resulted in a net consumer price index (CPI) increase of approximately 1.2%, with higher spikes in key durable goods. Global supply chains are beginning to reconfigure.   The automotive sector, in particular, has seen disruption in bilateral flows with traditional partners, creating openings for new logistical nodes. The UAE stands out as a beneficiary, attracting redirected FDI and becoming a strategic re-export and final assembly hub. Collectively, these findings underscore a paradox: while the policy aims to reduce dependency and correct trade imbalances, it simultaneously accelerates external retaliation, domestic cost pressures, and global fragmentation in trade infrastructure.