The geopolitical landscape in the Middle East has entered a period of extreme volatility as we approach the end of March. While the 2023 rapprochement between Riyadh and Tehran initially suggested a long-term cooling of tensions, the current environment is defined by a fragile “cold peace” that could be shattered by a single miscalculation. The primary concern remains Iran’s nuclear trajectory and its influence over regional proxies, which continues to dictate the military posture of its neighbors.
Read more Will US or Israel strike Iran first? The long-standing shadow war between Israel and Iran has reached a critical juncture. With the geopolitical landscape shifting rapidly in early 2025, the question is no longer just about if a direct confrontation will occur, but who will take the definitive first step. The criteria for this are specific: a kinetic strike—missile, drone, or air—on Iranian soil or diplomatic outposts. While both the United States and Israel have reasons to act, their strategic thresholds differ significantly. Recent Developments and Fact-Check Over the last 14 days, several key events have sharpened the focus on this potential flashpoint: Shift in US Executive Leadership: Following the inauguration on January 20, 2025, the new US administration has immediately signaled a return to «maximum pressure» on Tehran. The appointment of known hawks to key foreign policy positions suggests a lower tolerance for Iranian regional escalation, though the primary focus remains on economic isolation for now. Degradation of Iranian Proxies: Recent operations in Lebanon and Syria have significantly weakened Hezbollah’s missile capabilities. Israeli defense officials have publicly noted that this creates a «window of opportunity,» as Iran’s primary deterrent against a direct strike on its own territory has been compromised. Continued US Focus on Proxies: On January 11, 2025, the US and UK launched another round of strikes against Houthi infrastructure in Yemen. This reinforces a pattern: the US is currently willing to strike Iranian-backed groups to protect maritime interests, but has yet to cross the threshold of hitting Iranian sovereign territory. The Case for Israel as the Primary Actor Israel remains the most likely candidate to initiate a strike on Iranian soil. For the Israeli security establishment, the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran is viewed as existential, not just a strategic challenge. This is governed by the «Begin Doctrine,» which mandates that Israel will use preemptive force to prevent any enemy in the Middle East from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Here’s the thing: Israel has shown it is willing to act alone if it perceives that international diplomacy has failed to halt Iran’s uranium enrichment progress. Furthermore, Israel’s military intelligence and air force have spent decades training specifically for long-range missions into Iran. While the US has the superior capability, it also has more to lose in terms of global energy stability and the risk of a broader regional war that could bog down its forces. Israel, conversely, may feel that the current weakness of Iran’s «Ring of Fire» (its proxy network) makes this the safest moment to strike directly at the source. Why the United States Might Wait The United States typically operates under a doctrine of «proportional response.» Historically, US strikes in the Middle East are reactive—triggered by direct attacks on US personnel or assets. While the new administration is more confrontational, the political cost of initiating a new, high-intensity conflict remains a significant deterrent. The US is more likely to provide the intelligence, refueling, and diplomatic cover for an Israeli strike rather than being the one to launch the first missile at Iranian territory. For the US to go first, we would likely need to see a catastrophic provocation, such as a direct Iranian attack on a US carrier or a major embassy. Triggers to Watch What changes the picture? Keep an eye on these specific signals: IAEA «Breakout» Reports: Any official confirmation that Iran has moved to 90% enrichment would likely trigger an immediate Israeli response. Advanced Air Defense Deliveries: If reports surface that Iran is successfully integrating Russian S-400 systems, Israel may feel forced to strike before the window of aerial superiority closes. Direct US Personnel Casualties: A drone strike on a US base in Iraq or Jordan that results in significant American fatalities would be the most likely catalyst for a «US-first» scenario. Current data shows a nearly even split in expectations, with Israel holding a slight edge at 50.15% compared to the US at 49.85%. This reflects the extreme ambiguity of the current moment. With over $5.9 million in total volume and high liquidity, the consensus is essentially a toss-up, though the price has seen a slight downward trend for the Israel outcome over the past 24 hours, dropping by about 6.5%. Sources : Reuters: Israel’s Defense Minister on Iran’s Vulnerability BBC: US and UK carry out new strikes on Houthi targets Times of Israel: IDF Chief on Long-Range Strike Capabilities Associated Press: Explaining the Israel-Iran Direct Confrontation Risks
Recent Developments and Fact-Check
Over the last 14 days, several key indicators have shifted the assessment of regional stability:
- Nuclear Escalation: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has recently highlighted concerns regarding Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium. Reports indicate that the technical barriers to weaponization are thinning, which historically serves as the ultimate “red line” for regional powers. You can find the latest oversight context in the IAEA Director General’s statement.
- Defense Realignment: Saudi Arabia and the United States have accelerated discussions regarding a formal defense pact. While the public rhetoric focuses on cooperation, the underlying motive is a collective security framework specifically designed to counter Iranian missile and drone capabilities.
- Proxy Friction: Continued activity from groups in Yemen and Iraq has forced regional capitals to reconsider their “non-interference” policies. The threat to maritime trade and domestic infrastructure remains a primary driver for potential kinetic responses.
The Case for Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia stands out as the most significant actor in this context. Despite the diplomatic channels opened via Chinese mediation, the structural rivalry between Riyadh and Tehran has not disappeared; it has merely changed form. If a strike were to occur by March 31, Saudi Arabia is the most likely candidate to initiate or participate in a coalition-led aerial operation. This is driven by the necessity to protect its “Vision 2030” economic projects, which are highly vulnerable to regional instability. A direct strike would likely be framed as a “preemptive defensive measure” against imminent threats to its sovereignty or energy infrastructure. The Saudi Air Force possesses the sophisticated Western-made hardware—specifically F-15SA fighters and long-range munitions—required to execute the specific types of strikes defined in the resolution criteria.
Comparing the Competitors
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Qatar present different strategic profiles. The UAE has historically been more hawkish than Saudi Arabia but has recently pivoted toward a “zero problems” foreign policy to safeguard its status as a global trade hub. While they maintain high military readiness, a unilateral strike on Iranian soil would carry a catastrophic risk to Dubai’s economy. Qatar, on the other hand, remains an outlier. Despite some speculative interest, Qatar’s role as a primary mediator between the West and Iran makes a military strike almost unthinkable. Their strategy relies on being “everyone’s friend,” and launching a missile would permanently destroy their diplomatic leverage. The high interest in a Qatari strike likely stems from a misunderstanding of the presence of foreign bases versus the actions of the Qatari military itself.
Read more DeepSeek V4 released by…?
Triggers to Watch
What could change this picture in the coming weeks? Watch for these three signals:
- IAEA “Breakout” Reports: Any official confirmation that enrichment has reached 90% would likely trigger an immediate emergency summit in Riyadh or Abu Dhabi.
- Houthi Miscalculations: If a drone or missile from Yemen impacts a major Saudi or Emirati population center, the “rapprochement” will likely end instantly in favor of a direct strike on the source of the technology.
- US “Maximum Pressure” 2.0: Any shift in Washington toward more aggressive containment will provide the political cover necessary for regional allies to take kinetic action.
Current Sentiment Overview
Current expectations show a strong lean toward Saudi Arabia, with a perceived probability of 54%, reflecting its role as the regional heavyweight. Interestingly, the UAE follows at 41.5%, while Qatar maintains a surprisingly high 31.5% despite its mediator status. European powers like France and the UK remain lower in the 16-18% range, as their involvement would likely be contingent on a much broader international conflict. Liquidity remains highest in the Saudi and Qatari segments, indicating where the bulk of the analytical focus is currently directed.
Read more What price will Ethereum hit in March?
Sources :
