The forecasts made ahead of 2025 offered plenty of food for thought, suggesting that the year would be rich in dramatic developments. And now, it seems the predictions are slowly coming true.
U.S. attention toward the Middle East and the broader region is not only not fading—it’s verging on a critical turning point. While Donald Trump flaunts his peacekeeping stance in Eastern Europe, he has practically issued an ultimatum to Iran, giving the Islamic Republic just two months to respond to his proposals regarding its nuclear program.
Judging by the tone of the U.S. president and the initial responses from the Iranian side, there’s not even a hint of compromise—it is deliberately being excluded from the context. Neither side is willing to take a step back. And this is no longer a show of strength and capability, but rather a strict warning—one that inevitably implies decisive action to follow.
Meanwhile, other equally heated storylines are brewing around this tense, indirect dialogue between Tehran and Washington. The slaughter in Gaza continues, the situation on the Lebanon-Syria border is heating up, the Houthis in Yemen have already unveiled their weaponry, and U.S. warships in the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf are on full military alert. All of this indicates that in the event of a direct clash between Iran and the U.S., Israel will not remain on the sidelines—and other neighboring countries may also spring into action, launching preemptive or even offensive operations.
It’s no coincidence that the wider region is being classified as extremely turbulent. Expectations for a new wave of confrontation are varied, and it’s quite possible that the foundations of a new world order may begin to form from here. What that will look like in practice is hard to predict. However, if we recall that since the early 2000s the West has floated ideas about redrawing the map of the Middle East to “correct past mistakes,” then much becomes clearer.
Leaders of major powers have repeatedly admitted to the mistakes made by great powers in the early and mid-20th century. Their rhetoric has pointed out that a number of “incorrect states” were created in this volatile region. And now, as they seek to correct those errors, it means that some existing states may be in for serious upheavals. This suggests that tectonic transformations and fractures are inevitable in the near future—and it doesn’t take much imagination to understand how painful this could be for peoples and ethnic groups. What’s more, the program to create new states has not been canceled and remains in effect.
Now to the potential trigger of regional upheaval: a U.S.-Iranian clash. The U.S. administration has initiated new sensitive sanctions against its archrival, stripping it of the ability to export oil. For Tehran, this is effectively a casus belli. The latest U.S. sanctions target 13 companies and 8 vessels involved in transporting Iranian oil to China. With one shot, the White House hit two targets. And while Beijing remains silent in the face of this American move, it doesn’t mean China is calmly swallowing the bitter pill. A response will surely come.
However, China had already planned for alternatives, securing energy supplies from Malaysia. Malaysia, too, had been purchasing Iranian oil to stockpile reserves for emergencies. While the country does have its own oil industry, it is minor compared to the capacities of major Middle Eastern producers.
The reason for this latest U.S. economic offensive against Iran was a statement from Washington claiming that Tehran poses a serious threat to American national security interests. In reality, Donald Trump is activating a long-standing U.S. campaign to pressure Tehran and resolve this persistent issue once and for all.
This is not just about Iran’s nuclear threat, but also its dangerous ballistic missile program and its support for Shiite forces in the region, which are equated with terrorist groups.
It’s widely known that definitions of terrorism and terrorists differ drastically between the Western world and the rest of the planet. But the point here is that public opinion is heavily shaped by media outlets controlled by transnational corporations—and that’s just how it is. The massive pressure campaign against Tehran aims to subdue the defiant nation and to discourage others from following suit. Another goal is to sever Iran’s energy ties with China.
So, what about Iran? Does it have room to maneuver if the situation crosses into a critical phase?
Tehran has rejected Trump’s language of threats, reminding the world that it does not consider direct negotiations with the U.S. even a possibility. For Iran’s leadership, talks with European countries—namely the UK, Germany, and France—as well as with Russia and China, carry far more strategic weight when it comes to the nuclear deal. Iran emphasizes the low significance of the U.S. factor, highlighting the destructive role of Donald Trump himself, who in his previous term withdrew from the comprehensive nuclear agreement. The antagonism is clear, and there are no signs of softening positions.
Tehran has indicated that a response to the U.S. president’s message is under review by relevant authorities and will be delivered in due time. There’s no doubt it will reflect the interests of the Iranian people.
The tension between the two countries has been simmering for a long time. It peaked during the presidency of George W. Bush, who ultimately refrained from military intervention and abandoned the idea of bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities. But the arrow of hatred released twenty years ago is now nearing its target. What consequences will it bring?
There are many predictions—ranging from grim and ominous to outright apocalyptic. But one forecast appears the most realistic: the conflict will not remain bilateral. And it’s not guaranteed that Israel will be the only one to get involved. Many regional forces and states will be drawn into the fray. And that is exactly what must be avoided at all costs. Will it be?
Where there are fears, there are also tools and methods to overcome them. Understanding this basic truth may lead to the collapse of the idea of war. And there’s still a chance for that—though time is mercilessly pressing forward.
Tofig Abbasov
