The Middle East Realignment: Strategic Recalculations in a Post-Hegemonic Order

The Middle East of 2025 bears little structural resemblance to the region that shaped the foreign policy assumptions of the late twentieth century. The old binaries — Arab-Israeli conflict as the organizing axis, American hegemony as the stabilizing constraint, oil as the master variable — have not disappeared, but they have been joined, overlaid, and in some cases displaced by a new set of dynamics whose contours are still being established. What is emerging is a regional order that is more multipolar, more transactional, and more autonomous from external powers than anything the region has experienced in the post-Cold War era.

This realignment is not a single event. It is an accumulation of strategic recalculations made by multiple actors over several years, in response to a set of structural shifts that have been building since at least 2015. The U.S. retrenchment from the region, accelerated by the Afghanistan withdrawal and signaled by the reduced prioritization of Middle Eastern policy under successive administrations, removed one of the key certainties that had organized the region's strategic logic. The Abraham Accords, for all the controversy they generated, demonstrated that the normalization of Arab-Israeli relations was achievable outside the Palestinian statehood framework that had been the nominal precondition. The 2023 Gaza war imposed new costs on that normalization agenda but did not reverse it structurally. The Iranian nuclear negotiations, recurring in cycles of engagement and collapse, have not resolved the fundamental question about Iran's trajectory but have created an institutional infrastructure of contact that persists even during periods of hostility.

Understanding the current moment requires examining the strategic positions of each major actor not in isolation but in terms of their relationships to one another — the bilateral and multilateral interactions that are producing the new regional geometry.

The Saudi Strategic Recalculation

Saudi Arabia is the most consequential actor in the current regional realignment, because its strategic choices affect, directly or indirectly, the calculus of every other significant regional actor. The Kingdom's post-2020 trajectory represents one of the most significant foreign policy pivots of any major power in the contemporary period.

The Saudi recalculation has several distinct components. The first is the domestic transformation agenda — Vision 2030 — which has reshaped the Kingdom's strategic priorities in ways that are not always appreciated from outside. Vision 2030 is not simply an economic diversification program; it is a project of deliberate statecraft aimed at transforming the social contract that has governed Saudi Arabia since the oil boom of the 1970s. It has required the Crown Prince and de facto leader, Mohammed bin Salman, to make a series of political bargains — with the religious establishment, with the business community, with the significant diaspora of Saudi nationals with international connections — that have changed the domestic constraints on Saudi foreign policy.

The domestic transformation agenda has given Saudi Arabia's foreign policy a strong economic dimension that was previously secondary. The Kingdom is now actively competing for foreign direct investment, for tourism, for entertainment industry revenue, for talent, and for the positioning of Saudi sovereign wealth and development capital as key levers of regional and global influence. This economic dimension has changed the calculus on normalization with Israel — not by making it politically easier domestically, but by making the U.S. security and technology guarantees that normalization might bring commercially attractive in ways that reinforce the geopolitical case.

The second component is the Yemen ceasefire diplomacy, which culminated in a negotiated process that, by 2024-2025, had substantially reduced active military hostilities between the Saudi-led coalition and Houthi forces, even as the Gaza conflict created new complications for regional diplomacy. Saudi Arabia's engagement in the Yemen de-escalation reflected a strategic assessment that the Yemen war had become costly — financially, diplomatically, and in terms of internal Saudi security — without producing the strategic outcomes it was designed to achieve.

The China Factor

The March 2023 Saudi-Iran normalization agreement, brokered by China, was the single most symbolically significant diplomatic development in the Middle East in the past decade. Its significance was not primarily practical — relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran have remained complex and competitive despite the formal normalization — but structural. It demonstrated that China was willing and able to play the role of diplomatic broker in a region where, for the prior three decades, the United States had held a near-monopoly on the architecture of formal diplomatic processes.

China's motivations were multiple and have been extensively analyzed. Energy security — China imports a substantial portion of its oil from both Saudi Arabia and Iran — provided a direct material interest in stability. Geopolitical signaling — demonstrating diplomatic capability independent of the U.S. framework — served China's broader strategic interest in presenting itself as an alternative pole in the international order. Commercial interests — Belt and Road infrastructure investment in both countries, trade relationships — reinforced the diplomatic engagement.

For Saudi Arabia, the China-brokered normalization served several purposes simultaneously. It demonstrated to Washington that Riyadh had alternatives to the American security relationship and could develop them without abandoning the American partnership. It reduced the immediate threat from Iran-backed proxies — specifically the Houthis — at a moment when the Yemen war was consuming Saudi resources. And it opened commercial dimensions of the China-Saudi relationship that have continued to develop through energy, technology, and infrastructure channels.

The Saudi-Iran normalization did not resolve the structural tensions between the two powers. Saudi Arabia remains deeply concerned about Iranian regional expansionism, Iranian nuclear ambitions, and Iranian support for destabilizing proxy forces. But it changed the register of the competition from open hostility to managed rivalry — a shift that has consequences for every other regional actor whose strategy had been built around the assumption of active Saudi-Iranian confrontation.

Iran's Strategic Positioning

Iran enters the mid-2020s in a position of significant strategic complexity. The country has demonstrated that its deterrence calculus — most visible in its management of the direct exchange of strikes with Israel in April 2024 — has real credibility and sophistication. It has developed a "forward defense" doctrine, implemented through its network of proxy forces and allies across the region, that provides strategic depth and leverage disproportionate to its conventional military capabilities. And it has a nuclear program that is closer to weapons threshold than at any prior point in its history.

At the same time, Iran faces serious structural challenges. The economy has been severely damaged by decades of sanctions, mismanagement, and the structural distortions created by the revolutionary state's control of key economic sectors. Social tensions are real and recurring — the 2022-2023 protests following Mahsa Amini's death demonstrated the depth of popular discontent with the Islamic Republic's governance model. The succession question, which has been a structural uncertainty since Ayatollah Khomeini's death in 1989, has returned to the surface with Ayatollah Khamenei's aging and visible health deterioration.

Iran's foreign policy has attempted to leverage its strategic assets — the nuclear program, the proxy network, the deterrence credibility — to extract concessions from both the United States and regional rivals without making concessions significant enough to constrain its core interests. This strategy has achieved tactical successes but has not resolved the fundamental question: what kind of regional order is Iran prepared to accept, and at what cost?

The Nuclear Dimension

The Iranian nuclear program is the most significant single uncertainty in regional strategic calculations. Iran's uranium enrichment has reached levels — 60 percent and above at declared facilities — that are approaching weapons-grade and represent a significant advance over the situation that existed when the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was negotiated in 2015. The combination of enrichment advancement, installed centrifuge capacity, and accumulated experience has placed Iran at a "breakout" capability that most technical assessments place at a matter of weeks if Iran chose to pursue it.

The response of regional actors to this reality has been consequential. Israel's red line on Iranian nuclear capability has been explicit and reiterated at the highest levels. Saudi Arabia has publicly indicated interest in uranium enrichment capability "if Iran has it" — a formulation that signals both the escalation dynamic and the potential for nuclear proliferation beyond the Iran-Israel axis. The United Arab Emirates and other Gulf states have indicated interest in civil nuclear programs that, while intended for civilian energy, involve the acquisition of infrastructure that would be relevant to a weapons program if the regional security environment deteriorated further.

The current nuclear negotiating track — whether through formal diplomatic channels or through indirect engagement — has produced neither a restored JCPOA nor a formal breakdown of negotiations. The diplomatic stalemate preserves optionality for all parties while allowing Iran's program to continue advancing, a dynamic that is in Iran's interest in the short term but creates increasing pressure for a more decisive confrontation as the technical situation evolves.

Israel's Transformed Strategic Environment

The October 7, 2023 Hamas attack and the subsequent Gaza war have created the most significant transformation of Israel's strategic environment in a generation. The strategic consequences extend well beyond the immediate military campaign and require an analysis that distinguishes between the military/security dimension and the geopolitical/diplomatic dimension.

On the military/security dimension, the Israel Defense Forces' campaign in Gaza has achieved the significant degradation of Hamas's military infrastructure and the significant reduction of its operational leadership, though at enormous human cost and with significant consequences for Israel's international standing. The campaign has also involved a significant escalation of the confrontation with Iran and its proxies — direct missile exchanges with Iran, sustained military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon that significantly degraded its capacity, and operations against Houthi infrastructure in Yemen.

The degradation of Hezbollah's capabilities — the September 2024 communications infrastructure attack, the killing of Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, and the subsequent ground operations in southern Lebanon — represents the most significant shift in the military balance along Israel's northern border in decades. Hezbollah's deterrence credibility, which had been central to the regional security architecture since the 2006 Lebanon war, was substantially reduced. This creates a new strategic geometry that other regional actors, particularly Iran, must incorporate into their planning.

On the geopolitical/diplomatic dimension, the Gaza war has created severe complications for the normalization agenda that had been progressing under the Abraham Accords framework. Saudi Arabia, the most significant potential normalization partner, has made clear that a pathway to Palestinian statehood is a necessary condition for any formalization of normalization — a position that has become harder to maintain diplomatically as the extent of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza has become fully visible globally.

Israel's strategic challenge in the Gaza war's aftermath is one of the most difficult in the country's history: how to translate significant tactical military success into durable strategic gains in an environment where the diplomatic and reputational costs of the campaign have created new constraints on the freedom of action that military success was meant to produce.

The Post-Netanyahu Question

Israeli domestic politics have been deeply destabilized by the October 7 failure — the intelligence and operational failure that allowed Hamas to execute its attack — and by the subsequent management of the war. Prime Minister Netanyahu's political survival strategy has involved keeping the war going as a political imperative, which has created tension with military and security establishment figures who have different operational priorities. The judicial reform controversy that preceded the October 7 attack, and the subsequent political realignments, suggest that Israeli politics will remain highly volatile regardless of the eventual outcome of the Gaza campaign.

The succession of political leadership in Israel will have significant strategic consequences, as different potential successors hold substantially different positions on the questions that will define Israeli strategy for the next decade: the relationship with the United States under different American administrations, the conditions for normalization with Saudi Arabia, the management of the Palestinian authority question, and the posture toward Iran's nuclear program.

The Gulf State Recalibration

The United Arab Emirates and Qatar represent two distinct models of Gulf state strategy, and their divergence from each other — and from the simpler version of "Gulf state" as a category — is one of the more interesting features of the current regional moment.

The UAE has pursued the most comprehensively diversified foreign policy of any regional actor. Abu Dhabi's strategy combines active regional engagement — in Sudan, in Libya, in Yemen, in the Horn of Africa — with deep commercial integration with both the United States and China, significant investment in technology and AI capability (including its G42 AI company, the subject of sustained U.S. government attention regarding Huawei relationships), and a normalization with Israel under the Abraham Accords that has remained more durable than the subsequent political environment might have suggested.

The UAE's AI and technology investments deserve particular attention in the current strategic context. The country has positioned itself as an AI hub with ambitions that go well beyond its size — Abu Dhabi's Technology Innovation Institute and Falcon model family, G42's partnerships with major American AI companies, and the UAE's active engagement with the global AI governance debate. The strategic logic is clear: using technology investment as a tool of geopolitical positioning, attracting partnerships with both American and Chinese technology companies while maintaining enough distance from each to preserve strategic autonomy.

Qatar occupies a different position. Its hosting of Hamas's political leadership has created persistent tensions with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt — and with the United States and Israel — while simultaneously giving Qatar a diplomatic role in Gaza mediation that has proven genuinely valuable. The Qatar-brokered ceasefire negotiations, conducted in coordination with Egypt and the United States, have given Doha leverage and visibility disproportionate to its small size. The country's willingness to maintain communication channels with actors that other regional powers refuse to deal with is a strategic asset, even as it creates political complications.

Turkey's Regional Ambitions

Turkey's position in the current Middle East realignment is complex and underappreciated in most Western analysis, which tends to view Turkey primarily through the lens of NATO membership and the Erdoğan-West relationship.

President Erdoğan's Turkey has pursued a distinctly neo-Ottoman regional strategy — maintaining economic and political relationships across a wide range of actors who are in conflict with one another, using Turkey's historical connections and cultural influence to position Ankara as an indispensable broker in regional disputes. This has included military operations in northern Syria, drone technology exports that have been consequential in multiple regional conflicts, a sustained engagement with Hamas that has created friction with Israel and the United States, and a complex relationship with both Russia and Ukraine.

Turkey's Syria policy deserves particular attention. The Assad regime's collapse in late 2024 and the subsequent emergence of a transitional government in Damascus — dominated by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), itself a transformed evolution of earlier jihadist networks — created a new strategic reality on Turkey's southern border. Turkey's relationships with various Syrian rebel factions, accumulated over a decade of complex engagement, gave Ankara significant influence in the post-Assad transition that it is actively seeking to leverage. The extent to which Turkey can translate this influence into durable strategic gain — refugee returns, border security, economic access to a stabilizing Syria — will significantly affect its regional position.

American Reengagement and Its Limits

The United States remains the single most powerful external actor in the Middle East, but its ability to shape regional outcomes has decreased substantially relative to its post-Cold War peak. The combination of reduced dependence on Middle Eastern oil, sustained strategic losses in Iraq and Afghanistan, domestic political constraints on Middle East engagement, and the growing focus on China competition has produced a reordering of U.S. strategic priorities that is structurally consequential regardless of which administration is in power.

The Biden administration's approach to the region was characterized by an initial de-emphasis — the administration came to office with explicit messaging about reduced U.S. engagement in Middle Eastern conflicts — followed by reengagement driven by the consequences of that de-emphasis (the Afghanistan withdrawal, the JCPOA negotiation collapse, the Abraham Accords normalization agenda) and then by the October 7 crisis, which pulled U.S. attention and resources back to the region in ways the administration had not intended.

The current strategic moment features an American administration that has signaled continued commitment to Israeli security while also applying pressure on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, pursuing the Saudi normalization agenda as a priority, and maintaining deterrence against Iranian escalation through military assets in the region. The coherence of this strategy is contested, and its achievability under the current diplomatic constraints is uncertain.

The strategic question for the United States in the Middle East is not whether to be engaged but how to be engaged in ways that are proportionate to American interests, sustainable given domestic political constraints, and calibrated to the changed regional environment. The old strategy of hegemonic presence, universal alliance management, and direct intervention is no longer viable. What replaces it has not yet been fully defined.

The Security Architecture Question

One of the most significant open questions in the current regional moment is whether a new security architecture is being built to replace the U.S.-centered one that characterized the post-Gulf War period. Several candidate architectures are being discussed, none of which has yet achieved sufficient buy-in from relevant actors to be called operational.

The most ambitious is a Middle East NATO-type arrangement — some form of collective security structure that would include Israel, the Gulf states, possibly Jordan and Egypt, with U.S. backing. Such an arrangement would provide a framework for burden-sharing on regional security, create a formal institutional basis for the Saudi-Israel normalization, and give the United States a more structured platform for regional engagement without requiring the direct military presence levels of the post-2001 period. The challenge is the Palestinian question: any arrangement that includes Israel requires a framework for addressing Palestinian political aspirations that both Israeli and Gulf Arab domestic politics can sustain.

A second candidate is a more limited set of bilateral security arrangements — U.S. defense commitments to individual Gulf states, modeled on but not equivalent to formal treaty alliances — that provide security guarantees without the collective security architecture. This is essentially the current situation, and its stability depends on the credibility of U.S. commitments that have been called into question by recent events.

The Palestinian Question: Persistent and Transformed

No account of the Middle East realignment is complete without confronting the Palestinian question, which has been transformed by the Gaza war but not resolved. The transformation is multidimensional.

The Hamas political and military leadership has been substantially degraded, but Hamas as a political organization — representing a specific vision of Palestinian political agency — has not been eliminated. The question of governance in post-war Gaza remains unresolved: the Israeli government's rejection of Palestinian Authority governance in Gaza, combined with its military campaign against Hamas, has created a situation in which no legitimate governance structure exists or is being constructed.

The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank faces its own crisis of legitimacy, perceived by significant portions of the Palestinian public as both corrupt and politically impotent. The prospect of Palestinian statehood — the nominal objective of the Oslo Accords framework and of most international diplomatic engagement with the Palestinian issue — has receded further from practical realizability despite the increased number of states formally recognizing Palestinian statehood in the aftermath of October 7.

The demographic and territorial realities of the West Bank have been significantly shaped by decades of Israeli settlement expansion, to a degree that has made the two-state solution as traditionally conceived — a contiguous Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza alongside Israel — increasingly difficult to implement even if political will were present. This is a structural observation, not a partisan one; it reflects the assessment of Israeli security establishment figures, international law specialists, and policy analysts across the political spectrum.

The Day-After Question in Gaza

The most immediate and consequential unresolved question is governance in Gaza. The options, none of which commands sufficient political support to be implemented, represent the central diplomatic challenge of the current period.

International governance — a UN-mandated transitional authority, possibly similar to the East Timor or Kosovo models — would require Security Council support that China and Russia are unlikely to provide in a form acceptable to the United States and Israel. Palestinian Authority governance would require a reform and revitalization of the PA that is unlikely to be achieved quickly, and Israeli political acceptance of PA governance in Gaza that the current government has explicitly refused. Regional governance — some form of Arab state temporary administration — faces resistance from potential Arab state participants who have no desire to assume governance responsibility for a devastated territory under continuous Israeli military operations. Israeli military administration, if extended indefinitely, creates the international humanitarian and legal exposure that Israel's allies most want to avoid.

The practical consequence of this impasse is that the humanitarian crisis in Gaza continues to deepen, the international legal pressure on Israel continues to accumulate, and the diplomatic environment for regional normalization continues to be constrained by a situation that none of the key actors has the political will to resolve.

The Energy Dimension of Regional Realignment

The Middle East's role in global energy markets is changing in ways that have strategic implications. The Gulf states' long-term oil revenues face structural uncertainty from the global energy transition, which has given new urgency to diversification strategies while also creating a specific form of strategic insecurity — awareness that the resource on which national power is based is subject to a decades-long structural decline.

Saudi Arabia's oil production decisions remain among the most consequential economic policy choices in the world. OPEC+ cohesion — the arrangement that has bound Saudi production decisions to coordination with Russia and other producers — has been tested repeatedly by the divergent interests of its members, by demand uncertainty, and by U.S. shale production dynamics. The arrangement has survived, but its long-term durability is uncertain.

The Gulf states' sovereign wealth fund diversification strategies are themselves a form of geopolitical repositioning. Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, Abu Dhabi's ADIA and Mubadala, Qatar Investment Authority, and Kuwait Investment Authority collectively manage over $3 trillion in assets, with portfolios that span global equities, real estate, private equity, and strategic stakes in technology companies. These investment strategies are not merely financial; they represent attempts to build the institutional capabilities and international relationships that will sustain national power in a post-hydrocarbon world.

The Gas Economy and Qatar's Position

Qatar's position deserves specific attention in the energy context. Qatar is the world's largest LNG exporter, and its ability to redirect LNG flows — demonstrated dramatically during the European energy crisis of 2022, when Qatar redirected shipments to European customers facing Russian supply disruptions — has given it economic leverage that extends well beyond its small size and population.

The European LNG demand created by the Russia-Ukraine war has strengthened Qatar's strategic position in its relationship with both Europe and the United States, providing economic rationale for security relationships and creating energy partnership dynamics that reinforce Qatar's diplomatic positioning. Qatar's willingness to sign long-term LNG contracts — with European customers anxious about supply security — at terms favorable to the buyers has generated political goodwill that has translated into diplomatic support.

The Strategic Logic of the New Regional Order

Stepping back from the bilateral and issue-specific dynamics, what is the overall logic of the emerging regional order? Several structural features define it.

Multipolarity within the region. The relative decline of American hegemony has not produced a replacement hegemon. China does not want the security commitments that hegemony would require; Russia lacks the economic resources; no regional actor has the combination of capabilities required for regional dominance. The result is a more genuinely multipolar regional order in which multiple actors pursue autonomous strategies, manage multiple competing relationships, and resist the binary alignments that characterized the Cold War and early post-Cold War period.

Transactionalism as the dominant diplomatic mode. The normalization processes, the security arrangements, and the economic partnerships that are reshaping the region's diplomatic landscape are characterized by explicit conditionality and transactional logic. Saudi Arabia expects concrete U.S. security guarantees and technology partnerships in exchange for normalization with Israel. The UAE expects protection of its strategic autonomy in exchange for adherence to U.S. technology export controls. These are not alliance relationships built on shared values; they are partnerships built on overlapping interests, and they are managed accordingly.

Domestic politics as a structural constraint. All of the region's major actors are managing significant domestic political pressures that constrain their foreign policy freedom of action. Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030 has created a new political coalition that requires economic delivery. Iran's leadership faces genuine popular discontent. Israel's domestic politics are in a period of unprecedented polarization. Egypt's military-managed economy faces persistent development failures. These domestic constraints limit the ability of external actors — including the United States — to shape regional outcomes through diplomatic pressure alone.

The Middle East of the coming decade will be defined not by a new hegemonic order replacing the American one, but by a managed competition among multiple regional actors, mediated by external powers with more limited and more conditional engagement. This is a more unstable equilibrium than what preceded it, but it is also more resilient to the kind of hegemonic overreach that has periodically produced the most destabilizing interventions in modern regional history.

Implications for External Actors

For the United States, the strategic implication of the regional realignment is the need to develop a more sophisticated and more limited conception of what American interests and American influence look like in a genuinely multipolar Middle East. The instinct to seek hegemonic control — to manage alliances, broker agreements, and shape outcomes as the indispensable external actor — is increasingly costly and decreasingly achievable. A more realistic strategy would identify the specific American interests that are non-negotiable (Israel's security, freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea, prevention of nuclear proliferation) and calibrate engagement to protecting those interests rather than attempting to manage the entire regional order.

For China, the regional realignment represents an opportunity to deepen influence — commercial, diplomatic, and eventually security — in a region where it has major energy interests and growing strategic investments. The China-brokered Saudi-Iran normalization has demonstrated both the willingness and the capacity to play a more active role. But China's ability to deepen its Middle East influence without acquiring the security commitments that genuine regional influence requires is limited. Beijing will eventually face the choice between accepting those commitments and seeing its influence plateau.

For European powers, the Middle East realignment creates both energy security implications — particularly given Europe's ongoing vulnerability to energy market disruptions — and migration and stability implications that are directly felt domestically. European strategic autonomy in the Middle East has been limited since the failure of European-mediated diplomacy in the 2000s, but the energy crisis of 2022-2023 demonstrated that European interests in the region are concrete and cannot be managed purely through multilateral frameworks.

Looking Forward

The Middle East is entering a period of strategic flux that will produce a new regional order — but the character of that order is not yet determined. Three scenarios merit serious consideration.

The first is a managed multipolarity — a regional order in which multiple actors pursue autonomous strategies, external power competition is channeled through economic and diplomatic rather than military forms, and the accumulated agreements and deterrence frameworks of the current period produce a rough stability. This scenario requires no actor to overreach catastrophically and no single disruption to cascade through the regional system in ways that exceed the system's absorptive capacity.

The second is a proliferation cascade — a scenario in which Iran's nuclear program reaches threshold capability without either a negotiated resolution or a successful preventive strike, triggering a regional decision by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and possibly others to develop their own nuclear capabilities. This scenario does not require intentional escalation; it can result from a series of rational decisions by individual actors, each responding to the strategic environment that others have created, producing collectively an outcome that none intended.

The third is a protracted conflict — a scenario in which the Gaza war's humanitarian and political consequences, combined with the Israeli-Iranian escalation dynamics, produce a broader regional conflict that exceeds the containment capacity of the deterrence frameworks that have so far limited escalation. This is the scenario that U.S. and regional military planners have worked hardest to prevent; its probability is non-trivial.

Which of these scenarios materializes will depend on decisions made in capitals from Washington to Tehran to Riyadh over the next several years — decisions shaped by domestic politics, strategic calculation, and the unpredictable intersection of events. What is clear is that the Middle East is in a period of genuine strategic transformation, and that the institutions, frameworks, and strategic relationships of the post-Cold War period are no longer adequate to manage it.

Sources & References

Foreign Affairs Survival: Global Politics and Strategy Middle East Journal International Security The Economist Financial Times Al-Monitor Carnegie Endowment for International Peace — Middle East Program International Crisis Group — Middle East Reports RAND Corporation — Middle East Policy Research Brookings Institution — Center for Universal Education and Center for Middle East Policy Council on Foreign Relations — Middle East Studies Chatham House — Middle East and North Africa Programme International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) — Military Balance and Regional Studies U.S. Energy Information Administration — Middle East Energy Reports United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs — Gaza and West Bank Reports Bank for International Settlements — Economic and Financial Analysis Arab Human Development Reports (UNDP) Khaled Elgindy — Blind Spot: America and the Palestinians from Balfour to Trump Dennis Ross — Doomed to Succeed: The U.S.-Israel Relationship from Truman to Obama Ali Vaez and Vali Nasr — Iran Policy Research Bruce Riedel — Kings and Presidents: Saudi Arabia and the United States since FDR Gause, F. Gregory — The International Relations of the Persian Gulf