The war with Iran has already reshaped the Middle East, regardless of how or when the fighting formally ends. The strategic landscape has shifted in ways that cannot be undone. The remaining questions are how other countries, especially Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey, respond and what the U.S. should be doing now to shape that future.
While negotiations are reportedly ongoing, any agreement that allows Iran to retain the ability to enrich nuclear material, develop advanced ballistic missiles, or fund proxy networks is not a deal that ends a war. It merely postpones the next one. President Trump has stated he would not accept such a deal and Israel certainly will not.
The same logic applies to Iran’s capacity to threaten global commerce through the Strait of Hormuz. Allowing a hostile power to maintain leverage over one of the world’s most critical shipping lanes guarantees continued instability and recurring crises.
Even before the fighting concludes, regional actors have absorbed a hard lesson. Gulf countries, along with Europe, now understand that reliance on a single choke point for energy flows is a strategic vulnerability. This reality is already driving new thinking about pipelines, alternative routes, and energy corridors that bypass the strait.
Saudi Arabia appears to be moving cautiously in a more pro-Western direction, recognizing the economic and security benefits of stability and integration. Yet without careful leadership, Saudi policy could swing back toward ideological postures that have historically undermined regional cooperation, driven in part by domestic opinion, which has shifted sharply against Israel and the West through sustained al-Jazeera and social media narratives. The Saudis can thank their neighbors the Qataris for that.
For years Qatar has attempted to play all sides at once, hosting Western forces while providing financial and political support for terrorist organizations. Qatar is now blaming Israel for its problems. Apparently, they didn’t get the memo that U.S. national security has not been subverted to Qatari interests, despite the billions they have spent attempting to influence the American administration.
Faced with this reality, Qatar is reportedly seeking accommodation with Tehran through quiet concessions, effectively paying for temporary calm rather than supporting long-term security.
Turkey’s position is equally conflicted. While benefiting from NATO protections against Iranian missiles, Ankara continues to direct public criticism toward Israel and the West.
European hesitation to fully align with American leadership during the conflict has underscored longstanding questions about NATO’s cohesion and willingness to confront emerging threats. Restrictions on U.S. military operations and uneven political support have exposed fractures at a critical moment.
Meanwhile Iran has demonstrated both the capability and intent to expand its missile program, including systems that can reach Europe.
In light of President Trump’s criticism of NATO, it is likely that the remaining years of his administration will be spent redefining what the alliance really stands for.
Israel, by contrast, has demonstrated a fundamentally different approach since the October 7 massacre. Having experienced the consequences of limited retaliation and containment, it now recognizes the necessity of eliminating threats rather than managing them.
In Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and now Iran, Israel has acted decisively to prevent hostile forces from rebuilding capabilities for future wars. This posture has reinforced its reputation as a reliable and effective ally willing to carry a disproportionate share of the burden.
The broader regional implications are significant. Countries that have chosen peace and cooperation with Israel have seen tangible benefits in trade, security, and economic growth. These outcomes are visible in investment flows, shared infrastructure projects, and enhanced stability. States still on the fence can see that alignment with constructive partners yields dividends, while ideological hostility leads to isolation.
Saudi, Qatar, and Turkey must choose between being part of a new century or clinging to the failings of the past. All three have maintained their global stature – and their sovereignty – through their relationship with the United States. They should thank the U.S. for our current actions to rid the world of the Iranian menace.
The United States now faces a critical window to define the next regional order, an alliance based on a shared vision. This means joining with governments that do not brutalize their people, invest seriously in defense, develop alternative energy routes that reduce vulnerability to hostile actors, and secure supply chains in sectors such as semiconductors, critical minerals, and pharmaceuticals.
That is a tall order. But it is necessary and achievable. There can be no middle ground. Countries that have long operated under the protection of American power must now step up. In the emerging global order, nations must contribute to collective security, reject terror and coercion as a tool of statecraft, and move beyond weakness and appeasement. This is the American vision for the new era.
EJ Kimball is the Director of Policy and Strategic Operations at the U.S. Israel Education Association and a foreign policy and national security consultant.
