Mounting Tension: Similar to a pressure system reaching capacity, the scenario involves escalating stress or conflict that accumulates over time within a specific geopolitical context.

The interplay of various dynamics reflects the delicate balancing act the U.S. performs in a region where its diplomatic, military, and strategic interests converge amidst a complex tapestry of local and international relations. Symbolically, “Tipping Point” signifies the critical juncture at which accumulated stress or conflict acts as a catalyst for change when it is at its most transformative.

The U.S. maintains its core objectives in the Middle East, aimed at preempting power vacuums that might invite Russian or Chinese influence and at containing regional conflicts to prevent wider destabilization. Despite a scaled-back military presence, the U.S. retains significant forces in the Gulf, with a smaller footprint in Iraq and Syria. Concurrently, Washington provides proposals to settle deep-seated regional disputes and promotes self-reliance among regional states in addressing security challenges, a strategy that also promotes American arms sales. Democratisation remains as Washington vigorously demand from its Middle Eastern allies, reinforcing its diplomatic posture.

In navigating the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, the United States exercises measured caution, especially regarding Iran, steering clear of direct conflict to avoid being drawn into another war. Such an approach underlines a broader strategy not only to minimize confrontation but to actively pursue courses of action that can defuse tensions and foster regional equilibrium. By choosing diplomacy over aggression, the U.S. aims to mitigate the resource exhaustion and complexities that tag along with enduring military commitments. Simultaneously, the strategic landscapes of Iraq and Syria serve as stages for ongoing, yet contained, skirmishes where the U.S., Israel, and Iranian-aligned forces are the reluctant cast. The American military, despite scaling back, maintains a robust presence in the Gulf and a deliberate, tactical footprint in Iraq and Syria. This calculated positioning highlights America’s persistent resolve to sculpt the power dynamics of the region and neutralize the reach of Iran-supported entities.

These two strategies reveal a delicate balance between restraint and assertiveness in U.S. foreign policy, aiming to maintain a delicate stasis in a region all too familiar with the ravages of war.

Intermittently, the U.S. applies intense pressure on Israel to positively engage with new peace initiatives. However, Washington’s efforts to strengthen relationships with Arab and Muslim nations are undermined by the evasive tactics of both Israeli and Palestinian leadership, preventing meaningful progress. Moreover, the longstanding bipartisan support for Israel in the U.S. is experiencing a gradual but noticeable shift as both hardline Democrats and Republicans reassess their stance on the longstanding alliance that does not seem to align with the evolving geopolitical landscape. A new layer of complexity is introducing a potential conflict of interest for the U.S. resulting from the economic connections Israel is developing with China, challenging the historical partnership between Israel and the U.S. As Israel’s economic ties with China deepen, this may lead to a recalibration in U.S. foreign policy priorities, and it raises questions about how U.S.-Israel relations will develop in the future.

As part of a broader, potentially transformative diplomatic approach, Washington seeks to reshape alliances and recalibrate strategic postures to counter Russian and Chinese influence. While the Russians and Chinese are increasing their support for Egypt, unsuccessfully, Washington’s attempt to pressure Cairo to revert relations with its great power rivals by reducing security cooperation and freezing military aid. Due to their strategic importance of Egypt, however, the United States does not intend to break up these ties in a major way. In light of the growing influence of Russia and China in Egypt, Israel must maintain some coordination with both countries regarding key national security issues, such as Gaza and the Red Sea. An intense conflict between Israel and Hamas does not result in a strategic change that would prevent the next round of conflict or bring a new era of peace. Israel reoccupies Gaza and withdraws after a year to allow the Palestinian Authority to manage it  — only to have Hamas retake control after several months as part of a negotiated agreement.

Meanwhile, in the region, Iran’s strategy is clear: weaken adversaries, commandeer vital locales, and assert its regional authority. As part of this strategy, Iran-backed militias continue targeting U.S. forces — which have been stationed in Iraq since 2014 and Syria since 2015 to aid in operations against ISIS known as Operation Inherent Resolve. These militias mostly use drones, rockets, and in some cases, short-range ballistic missiles.This approach by Iran does more than ruffle its immediate neighbors and extend beyond localized impacts; it upsets the foundational balance crucial for broader regional stability.

The implications of such a strategy are twofold: it opens pathways for extremist groups to gain footholds, and it intensifies the already simmering tensions.Iran-backed militias in southern Syria are known to be involved in the drug war against Jordan, providing support and weapons to drug traffickers. This not only fuels the conflict in the region but also poses a significant threat to the stability and security of Jordan, as it struggles to combat the drug trade and its associated acts of terrorism. Iran’s backing of the Houthi rebels in Yemen exemplifies this. It has not only escalated regional tensions but has also triggered security concerns along the vital maritime routes of the Red Sea, showcasing Iran’s malign influence and its repercussions on international peace and security.

Concurrently, Iran capitalizes on the Palestinian issue as a strategic tool to bolster its sway and further its geopolitical agenda across the Middle East. By stoking protests and sowing instability in neighboring countries, Iran seeks to undermine regional competitors, seize critical strategic positions, and cement its status as a dominant regional force. It stirs up discord in predominantly Shia areas of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Kuwait, as well as in vulnerable regions like Jordan and Israel. Such manoeuvres are integral to Iran’s wider strategy of expanding its influence, confronting rival powers, and claiming key strategic territories to reinforce its authority within the Middle Eastern sphere.While Iran continues to make provocative moves in the region, it temporarily puts its nuclear ambitions on hold to avoid an unintentional airstrike by the United States or Israel.Overall, Iran’s strategic regional engagement serves to undermine its rivals and disrupt the essential equilibrium needed for stability.

In an era where religious identity has become increasingly prominent, the challenges of integration and religious expression faced by second and third-generation Muslims in Western Europe resonate with young Muslims in the Middle East, who may view them as inadvertent role models amidst their own identity struggles. The schisms within Islam, particularly between Sunni and Shia branches, have historic roots that now manifest in renewed conflict potential, with a Shia-dominated Iraq potentially inspiring activism among Shia minorities in other Middle Eastern nations.

The allure of radical Islam rises amidst the ruins of economic despair and political disenfranchisement. Young Muslims, cast adrift by governments that cannot see them or speak for them, are attracted to extremism as a means of gaining a dangerous reputation. As a result of the enduring conflicts in the area, terrorist groups are able to breed there. Insidious and opportunistic radical entities emerge, exploiting the desolation of a generation lost to disillusionment, seizing the turmoil and utilizing it to their advantage. Differences over religion and ethnicity also will contribute to future conflict, and, if unchecked, will be a cause of regional strife.

The economic downturn following the Covid-19 pandemic lingers and has sparked increasing civil discontent and countermeasures across the region, with notable impacts in Algeria, Egypt, and Iraq. The decline is largely attributed to the dwindling state services, which are further complicated by reduced budgets and an increasing population. A particular issue in Cairo is the acute water shortage that exacerbates the food crisis in Egypt, which in turn drives up the cost of essential food items. The situation in Jordan is equally dire, with a severe shortage of water being faced by the country.

In essence, the “The Tipping Point and the Volatile Dynamics in an Unstable Region” scenario cautions against neglecting the buildup of geopolitical strain, emphasizing the need for proactive measures to address and diffuse tensions before they escalate to a critical, irreversible point. Incorporating the cautionary scenario of “The Tipping Point and the Volatile Dynamics in an Unstable Region,” the narrative emphasizes the dangers of centering U.S. regional policy predominantly around the theme of great power competition. Such an approach risks eroding US established alliances and with the emergence of a novel regional security structure, could compound the region’s security dilemmas, potentially disadvantaging the U.S. in the very contest it seeks to dominate. This scenario highlights the critical need for foresight and proactive engagement to mitigate tensions before they reach a point of no return, underscoring the complex interplay of alliance dynamics and regional stability.

To deal with the future we have to deal with possibilities. Analysis will only tell us ‘What is’. Edward de Bono, Parallel Thinking

The Tipping Point and the Volatile Dynamics in an Unstable Region Scenario


Andrew Curry and Wendy Schultz. “Road Less Traveled: Different Methods, Different Futures.” Journal of Future Studies. May 2009.

De Bono,Edward.Parallel Thinking.1990

Congressional Research Service. “Iran: Background and U.S. Policy.” Updated January 26, 2024.’s%20government%20seeks%2C%20among%20other,Foreign%20Terrorist%20Organizations%20(FTOs).

Jonas Svava Iversen. “Futures Thinking Methodologies — Options Relevant For ‘Schooling For Tomorrow.’” OECD. http://www.

Joseph S. Nye Jr. “Peering into the Future.” Foreign Affairs. July1994.

Middle East Policy. “The US Reassesses Its Role in the Middle East.” 1 March,2024.

Salami,Mohammad. “The Role of Militias in Iraq: Evaluating their Impact and Strategies for Mitigation.”French Research Center on Iraq,, 21 February, 2024,



Policy Researcher and Strategist | Media Analyst