Leverage in the Middle East 

Commentary

At first glance, Middle Eastern countries appear to fit into familiar categories: allies or adversaries of the United States. But a closer look reveals a far more complicated picture of overlapping, often contradictory relationships.

Let’s examine the landscape just before the U.S.–Israel military campaign against Iran began in late February 2026.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is widely viewed as a close U.S. partner, hosting military cooperation, purchasing advanced defense systems, and deepening ties with Israel via the Abraham Accords. Yet for years, Dubai functioned as a major commercial gateway for Iranian goods, capital, and business networks, helping Tehran navigate sanctions through its role as a global logistics and financial hub. In the wake of the 2026 conflict, the UAE has intensified crackdowns on these networks.

Saudi Arabia remains deeply tied to the United States for security while positioning itself as a leading Sunni power countering Iranian influence. At the same time, Riyadh restored diplomatic relations with Tehran in 2023 (brokered by China), coordinates oil policy with Russia through OPEC+, and has dramatically expanded economic engagement with Beijing. It has avoided formal normalization with Israel but maintains quiet security coordination, balanced against domestic and Arab political realities.

Qatar hosts the largest U.S. air base in the region at Al Udeid while maintaining pragmatic ties with Iran, including shared gas fields, and hosting Hamas political leaders. Its influence is amplified by Al Jazeera’s regional reach and extensive investments, donations, and lobbying across Western institutions. Not long ago (2017–2021), Qatar faced a blockade by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt over concerns about its support for Islamist movements, media coverage, and independent foreign policy—a rift that fractured the Gulf Cooperation Council before being resolved in 2021.

Turkey, a NATO member hosting Incirlik Air Base, purchased Russian S-400 systems (creating friction with the United States) and has pursued independent policies in Syria, often coordinating tactically with Russia. It has taken a strongly critical stance toward Israel, particularly on Gaza and Palestinian issues, even as other regional players have moved toward normalization.

This pattern repeats across the region, from Egypt and Jordan to Iraq and Oman. Countries cooperate, compete, and hedge simultaneously, depending on the issue and moment.

Layered History: From Ottoman Legacy to Modern Complexity

For centuries, much of the Middle East operated under the Ottoman Empire, a flexible imperial system based on overlapping loyalties: religious communities (millets), tribal networks, local elites, and central authority. It managed diversity rather than imposing uniformity.

After the empire’s collapse in World War I, European powers drew new borders through agreements such as Sykes-Picot (1916), imposing centralized nation-states on societies where identities (religious, tribal, ethnic) often crossed those lines. The Cold War added external alignments but rarely resolved underlying fractures.

Key turning points intensified the complexity: The 1967 war entrenched the Palestinian issue; the 1979 Iranian Revolution introduced transnational ideological networks; the Arab uprisings (from 2011) weakened states and empowered non-state actors. More recently, China has entered primarily through economic channels—Belt and Road Initiative projects, energy deals, and diplomatic mediation (for example, the 2023 Saudi–Iran deal)—while actually building long-term leverage.

The result is a multi-layered system where modern states exist but do not fully contain the deeper currents of identity, loyalty, and interest.

Thinking Like a Strategist

In such a system, the instinctive response—trying to fix everything at once—often generates activity without impact. Consider a power grid: One could attempt to strengthen every line and every node, but the stability of the entire system often depends on a few critical junctions. Or consider the human body: Applying pressure randomly produces little effect, but a small, precise intervention at certain points, as in acupuncture, can influence the entire system. 

The Theory of Constraints, developed by Eliyahu Goldratt in a business context, provides a useful framework. It shows that in highly interdependent systems, performance is actually disproportionately affected by a few nodes. Identify them, exploit and elevate them, and the whole system can shift. In this sense, complexity is not just a source of difficulty, but also a source of immense potential leverage. 

Effective leverage in the Middle East must operate across four interconnected layers at once. It needs to constrain adversary capability by disrupting funding streams, weapons flows, and logistical networks. At the same time, it should shift underlying system dynamics by influencing incentives, alliances, and economic corridors in ways that encourage new patterns of behavior.

Any sustainable approach must also respect political sustainability by aligning with the local realities, legitimacy concerns, and domestic constraints that regional leaders face. Finally, effective leverage must alter how the Chinese Communist Party perceives risk and opportunity—recognizing Beijing’s deep stake in regional energy security, its Belt and Road Initiative investments, and its strong preference for disrupting the United States while maintaining its own stability.

When actions hit multiple layers simultaneously, the system has fewer ways to adapt or reroute. Isolated efforts are easily absorbed, while coordinated ones can produce disproportionate, durable effects.

Testing the Framework: US Actions in Spring 2026

As of late April, the U.S.-led campaign has moved from the initial kinetic phase of Operation Epic Fury into a sustained pressure phase under a fragile, unilaterally extended ceasefire. The key actions—military strikes, threats to civilian infrastructure, the Operation Economic Fury sanctions campaign, and the “dual” blockade of the Strait of Hormuz—offer a real-world test. 

When viewed together, these actions create multiplicative effects. The military provided the initial shock to capability, while Economic Fury and the dual blockade sustain long-term pressure on the same bottleneck (funding and logistics). The infrastructure threats added psychological weight, amplifying perceived risks without requiring full execution. Collectively, they address multiple layers simultaneously: Capabilities are constrained, economic incentives shift, and external actors (particularly Beijing) see heightened risks to stability and opportunity costs in the continued tolerance of Iranian disruption.

The main friction point remains political sustainability. Gulf partners have quietly welcomed the pressure on Iran but remain wary of escalation that could destabilize domestic legitimacy or energy markets.

Within the framework, the highest-leverage combinations appear to be those that pair capability degradation with sustained economic constriction. These hit the critical bottlenecks—Iranian revenue, resupply, and projection power—while signaling resolve to China without crossing into actions that would severely undermine regional political sustainability.

The dual blockade, in particular, functions as a force multiplier: It raises costs across the system while leaving diplomatic off-ramps open. If these elements are maintained and subordinated to a clear strategy that reinforces local buy-in and shapes great-power perceptions, they have the greatest potential to produce durable shifts.

The Middle East’s layered complexity does not preclude effective leverage—it simply demands clear sight and precision. Actions that converge on a few key elements while respecting the deeper realities of the system offer the clearest path forward.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.