The region is entering a season in which old assurances are fading and new habits of power are being learned in real time
Across the globe, the post-Cold War settlement that once carried the promise of Western primacy is no longer taken as an unshakeable fact. Its vocabulary remains in circulation, yet real-time history continues to contest its authority. In the space left behind, many states are seeking a different idea of order, one that sounds less like instruction from a single center and more like negotiated balance among several centers. In such a moment, regions that were once treated as arenas begin to behave like authors. The Greater Middle East is one of the first places where this change is becoming visible as a messy strategic recomposition in which security is no longer outsourced and alliances are no longer assumed to be permanent.
For decades, a simple model dominated strategic thinking in the region. Washington would remain the ultimate guarantor, and regional states would calibrate their risks inside the umbrella of American deterrence. That model did not always prevent wars, but it provided a framework for expectation. Even when trust frayed, the underlying assumption was that the US could be induced to act, and that the cost of ignoring its interests would be prohibitive. In recent years, however, the region has experienced a succession of shocks that have made the old calculus feel less reliable. One of the most dramatic was the Israeli strike in Doha in September 2025, an operation that pushed a long-simmering anxiety into the open by showing how quickly escalation could breach political red lines in the Gulf. If such an event could occur with only limited external restraint, then the notion of an automatic security backstop began to look like a story the region told itself rather than a guarantee the system could still deliver.
It was in this atmosphere that the Saudi-Pakistani Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement, signed in September 2025, drew intense attention. It suggested that major regional players were preparing for a future in which protection would be organized through layered partnerships rather than delegated to a single patron. Analysts noted that the pact followed a pattern of disappointment with external responses, including perceptions of American restraint or hesitation when regional allies felt exposed. Whether the agreement functions as a hard war guarantee or as a strategic warning, it belongs to a wider movement in which states are building options.
Two emerging security configurations are now becoming visible across the Greater Middle East, and it is important to name their participants clearly. On one side, a prospective bloc is coalescing around Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Türkiye, Egypt, and Oman, with this core increasingly presented as a sovereignty-driven framework meant to reduce reliance on external guarantees and to deter destabilizing escalation, while Qatar, Algeria, and several other states observe this alignment with growing interest as a possible partner network rather than as a formal membership. On the other side, a countervailing alignment is taking shape around Israel and the United Arab Emirates, whose partnership is reinforced by defense industrial cooperation and advanced technology collaboration, and whose strategic reach is further strengthened by Azerbaijan, which acts less as a conventional member than as a pivotal partner connecting overlapping networks because it maintains close ties to Türkiye while simultaneously sustaining deep security and energy links with Israel and expanding cooperation with Abu Dhabi.
From that point onward, the region’s strategic landscape began to resemble a set of magnets shifting under the table, drawing some capitals closer while pushing others apart. The most consequential trend has been the emerging closeness among Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, a triangle with the potential to reshape the balance of military and diplomatic weight. In early February 2026, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan traveled to Riyadh, and public reporting described discussions that included deeper cooperation in the defense industry. Around the same period, Turkish and regional reporting highlighted Erdogan’s suggestion that Saudi Arabia could join Türkiye in investment and partnership around the KAAN fighter program, which carries both symbolic and practical significance for Ankara’s ambition to expand indigenous defense production and export capacity. Such projects matter not only because they add capability, but because they create interdependence, and interdependence is often the scaffolding of durable alignments.
This emerging axis has also been framed as a diplomatic instrument, not merely a military one. Reuters reporting in early February 2026 described a planned round of talks in Istanbul aimed at avoiding conflict, with participation invited from several regional powers including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Oman, Pakistan, and the UAE. Even allowing for the fluidity of such initiatives, the roster itself hints at a search for new forums where regional states are not simply reacting to outside agendas, but shaping the agenda collectively. The logic is straightforward. If the system can no longer be counted on to prevent confrontation, then the region must build mechanisms that reduce misunderstanding, increase transparency, and create off ramps before crises harden into wars.
Yet as one set of relationships deepens, another set is hardening into a counterweight. Israel’s security partnerships, particularly those tied to technology, intelligence, and advanced systems, are expanding in directions that unsettle parts of the region. The normalization wave that began with the 2020-2021 Abraham Accords opened channels that have since matured into tangible defense industrial cooperation between Israel and the UAE. The UAE’s EDGE Group investment in Israel’s ThirdEye Systems, reported in early 2025, is one illustration of this trajectory, pointing to a relationship that is increasingly comfortable with joint development, not only procurement. This represents a bet that technology can narrow the gap between threats and response, and that a compact among capable partners can offset the uncertainties of the wider environment.
Azerbaijan’s role adds another layer of complexity, because it sits at the intersection of these emerging blocs. It has cultivated long standing ties with Israel that include defense cooperation and energy trade, even as it maintains close relations with Türkiye. Reuters reporting in January 2026, citing Kpler data, described a rise in Israeli imports of Azerbaijani crude shipped via the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan route, underscoring the practical depth of that relationship. At the same time, Baku has also been deepening defense engagement with Abu Dhabi. Azerbaijan’s defense ministry reported planning activity in late 2025 for the joint exercise named Shield of Peace 2026 with the UAE. Additional reporting in early February 2026 described senior level attention to those exercises. In a region where symbolism carries strategic weight, exercises, industrial projects, and high visibility visits are messages to friends and warnings to rivals.
These cross-cutting ties are producing a Middle East in which old categories are less useful. States that once appeared to stand on the same side of an American-led security network are now drifting into different camps, each camp shaped by its own reading of risk. For some, the central fear is the possibility of an uncontrolled escalation that pulls the region into a direct clash involving Iran, the US, and their respective partners. For others, the fear is that Israel’s widening margin of military and technological superiority could translate into a freer hand, whether in the Gulf, the Levant, or the Red Sea corridor. The September 2025 strike in Doha, regardless of how one judges its motives, became a kind of demonstration of reach, and demonstrations of reach have a way of changing how neighboring states interpret their own vulnerability.
The anxiety is not confined to the Gulf. Israel’s leadership has also been signaling concern about shifts in the regional military balance. In early February 2026, Israeli media reported on a warning by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Egypt’s military capabilities were growing and needed monitoring. Such remarks suggest uncertainty about intent in a moment when alignments are changing. Egypt, for its part, is trying to secure room for maneuver and to ensure that its sovereignty is not constrained by a security environment designed by others. That impulse is widely shared, even by states whose policies differ sharply.
The Horn of Africa has become an unexpected mirror of this wider contest. In late December 2025, Israel announced recognition of Somaliland, a move that triggered strong objections from Somalia and condemnation by several actors, including Türkiye, which framed the decision as destabilizing and unacceptable. Whatever the long-term trajectory of Somaliland’s status may be, the episode illustrates how new fault lines are emerging far beyond the traditional frontiers of the Arab Israeli arena. It also underscores why Gulf and Red Sea states increasingly see security as a connected system rather than a set of isolated theaters. Ports, islands, shipping lanes, undersea cables, drone corridors, and energy routes now bind together places that once seemed separate. A local move on a map can echo into global trade, and global trade is one of the currencies of the new multipolar era.
All of this is happening while the region is simultaneously trying to protect economic transformation agendas that demand predictability. Mega events, tourism flows, industrial investment, and energy diversification all require a baseline level of stability that perpetual crisis cannot provide. That is one reason defense-industrial cooperation has become preferable to simple arms buying. Co-production ties partners together over time, and it gradually changes the domestic politics of alliance by embedding it in jobs, factories, and technical communities. It is also why diplomatic formats that emphasize de-escalation are proliferating, even among rivals who distrust one another. They don’t have to become friends – just manage risks in an era when insurance from outside is more conditional than it once was.
At the same time, the formation of opposing camps carries obvious dangers. Blocs tend to produce security dilemmas. One side’s defensive move can look like preparation for offense to the other side. Exercises invite counter exercises. Industrial partnerships invite counter partnerships. A narrative of sovereignty, once embraced by everyone, can become a justification for unilateral action when trust collapses. In such a climate, incidents can spiral quickly, especially when domestic politics, ideology, or leadership rivalry inflames what might otherwise remain manageable. The region has lived this story before, but the difference today is that the old referee is less willing to step onto the field, and the new referees are not yet recognized by all players.
And yet, within the turbulence lies an opening. If the region is forced to take responsibility for its own security, it may eventually build something more sustainable than dependence. The path there will not be linear. It will likely pass through competition among blocs, through harsh bargaining, and through moments when the temptation to test an adversary is strong. But over time, pressure often produces institutions. Hot rivalries sometimes mature into cold coexistence. Deconfliction channels become routine. Joint mechanisms for maritime security, airspace coordination, crisis communication, and arms control, even in partial form, can begin to take root because the alternative is too costly.
A plausible outcome, then, is not a neat victory of one alignment over another, but the gradual emergence of a regional security architecture that reflects the region’s true distribution of power and its layered identities. Such an architecture would not require states to agree on every conflict, nor would it erase ideological divides. It would aim instead to prevent rivalry from becoming catastrophe. If it succeeds, even imperfectly, the Greater Middle East could move from being a battlefield of the changing world order to being one of its designers. After a period of internal competition and painful adaptation, the region may find itself entering the new global era with more autonomy, more bargaining power, and a stronger ability to translate its geography and resources into influence rather than exposure.
