- By: Barrister Usman Ali (Ph.D)
The Middle East once again stands at a dangerous crossroads, where not only missiles and fighter jets, but global politics, regional interests, and deep divisions within the Muslim world are colliding.
On 28 February 2026, tensions escalated abruptly when the United States and Israel launched coordinated airstrikes on Iran, despite ongoing negotiations over its nuclear program. The strikes targeted military installations and senior leadership. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was killed along with his infant granddaughter, close relatives and senior officials.
In the early phase of the conflict, a deeply tragic incident shocked global observers: a missile strike hit a girls’ primary school in Minab, killing approximately 165 children aged between seven and twelve. Independent observers and United Nations experts described the attack as a serious violation of international humanitarian law.
As the conflict intensified during the holy month of Ramadan, reports indicated that around 1,500 people, including women and children, were killed, while nearly 20,000 were injured. Critical infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, water systems, and communication networks, suffered extensive damage, displacing hundreds of thousands. Parallel Israeli strikes in Lebanon have compounded the humanitarian toll.
In response, Iran launched retaliatory operations targeting not only Israel but also U.S. interests across the region, particularly military bases. Iranian officials argue that if attacks originate from bases located in third countries, responding to those sites falls within the right of self-defense. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, states possess the inherent right to self-defense in the event of an armed attack, though its application remains contested.
Yet, while the United Nations moved to condemn Iran’s strikes on U.S. bases in Gulf states, it failed to take effective action to halt the initial attacks. Several Muslim-majority countries also criticized Iran. This uneven response has exposed a deeper reality: a widening divide within the Muslim world, where states increasingly align themselves according to national and geopolitical interests rather than collective principles.
A fundamental question emerges, how has the Muslim world reached a point where its own countries host foreign military forces that are used against another Muslim state?
Over the past decade, many regional governments have deepened defense and strategic partnerships with the United States. For some, this is seen as a security guarantee; for others, a pathway to diplomatic leverage and economic gain. Joint military exercises, intelligence cooperation, and access to advanced defense systems form the backbone of these relationships.
In parallel, several Muslim-majority countries normalized relations with Israel through the Abraham Accords. The United Arab Emirates and Bahrain formalized ties in 2020, Morocco followed suit, and Egypt and Jordan had long-standing peace agreements. While these arrangements are framed as pragmatic diplomacy, they also reflect a shifting regional order.
However, this architecture carries inherent risks. When a country’s territory is used to launch attacks against another state, it risks becoming a direct participant in the conflict. The current crisis has underscored how quickly such arrangements can draw entire regions into escalation.
Today, the Middle East is visibly divided into competing strategic blocs. Some governments view alignment with the United States and Israel as essential for security and economic stability, while others see it as a departure from regional autonomy and Muslim unity.
At the heart of this tension remains the unresolved Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The devastation in Gaza and other Palestinian areas has drawn global concern, with reports of widespread civilian casualties and destruction of infrastructure. For many observers, this reinforces the perception that Israel enjoys consistent political and military backing from Western powers, particularly the United States.
Washington and Tel Aviv justify the current war by citing concerns over Iran’s potential development of nuclear weapons. Iran, however, has repeatedly denied pursuing such weapons and has consistently engaged in negotiations. Notably, diplomatic talks were ongoing at the very moment the strikes were launched.
This contradiction raises a critical question: why does Israel, widely believed to possess nuclear capability, seek to prevent Iran from acquiring a similar capacity? Critics argue that this reflects a broader pattern of double standards in international politics, one that undermines both legal norms and diplomatic credibility. This also raises a further question, under what moral or legal authority can any state assume a “policing” role over an entire region? Such contradictions only add to the complexity of the conflict.
More concerning still is the emerging narrative from some officials framing the conflict in religious terms. Such rhetoric risks transforming a geopolitical confrontation into a far more dangerous and polarizing struggle.
Yet, as always, the heaviest burden is borne by ordinary people. Wars and sanctions have weakened economies, displaced millions, and devastated communities across the region. The human cost continues to rise, often far removed from the decisions that trigger such conflicts.
This is no longer just a regional conflict, it is a test of whether international law applies equally to all, or selectively to the powerful.
The reality remains that lasting peace in the Middle East cannot be achieved through military alliances or foreign bases alone. It requires genuine diplomacy, respect for international law, and meaningful efforts to resolve core disputes, particularly the Palestinian issue, while addressing Israel’s ongoing aggression and broader power imbalances.
Unless regional states move beyond short-term interests and prioritize collective stability and unity, the cycle of retaliation and condemnation will persist. The Middle East risks remaining trapped in a destructive loop where each new conflict grows more complex and more devastating than the last.
At the same time, Muslim societies must remain vigilant against narratives that attempt to recast political conflicts as religious wars. Such framing only deepens divisions and prolongs instability. The only sustainable path forward lies in transcending narrow interests and fostering trust, cooperation, and unity across the region.