Syria’s worst violence in months reopens wounds of the civil war

LONON/DUBAI: The Iranian missile attack which was intercepted by Qatar on Monday night when it launched missiles against US troops stationed at Al-Udeid Air Base comes as a major setback for peace in the region.

As Iranian missiles lit up the sky over Doha in a retaliatory strike targeting the US military, a diplomatic solution to the Israel-Iran conflict, which has now drawn in the US, seemed further away than ever, with Tehran appearing to wash its hands of further nuclear talks.

Although no casualties were reported at Al-Udeid Air Base — the largest US base in the region — Iran’s counterattack is likely to invite additional American strikes and further regional escalation.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE have both condemned the attack on Qatari sovereignty. The Saudi foreign ministry lambasted Iran for its “unjustifiable” attack, offering to deploy “all its capabilities” to support Doha.

Since the Israeli-Iran conflict dramatically escalated over the weekend, the mixed global response to Israeli and US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities is testing the limits of modern diplomacy and exposing deep divisions among major powers.

What most seem to agree on is that while diplomacy is on the decline, it could have been the solution.

Experts say the fractured international reaction to the escalation reflects a shifting global order and the erosion of the post-Cold War consensus.

“There is no ‘global response’ to speak of at this moment,” Brian Katulis, senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, told Arab News. “This Israel-Iran war is taking place in a fractured geopolitical context.”

He argues that divisions among the US, China and Russia “make it next to impossible to marshal a collective diplomatic effort in the way that the world did in previous eras, like the immediate post-Cold War period of the 1990s.

“That’s why we will continue to see a lot of empty words disconnected from the actions that are actually reshaping the Middle East as we know it.”

On June 13, Israel launched airstrikes on Iranian military and nuclear sites including Natanz, Isfahan and Tehran, reportedly killing senior officials, nuclear scientists and civilians. In response, Iran launched “Operation True Promise III,” firing missiles and drones into Israel. Several struck Tel Aviv, Haifa and other cities, causing civilian casualties.

Despite initially assuring G7 allies that the US would stay out of the conflict, President Donald Trump reversed course on June 22, ordering B-2 bombers to strike Iran’s underground nuclear facilities with MOP “bunker-buster” bombs — weapons only the US possesses.

Although Trump declared that the strikes had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program, it remains unclear whether Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium was destroyed or relocated in time. If material and technical capacity remain, diplomacy may be the only path to prevent Iran from eventually building a nuclear weapon — a goal the regime could now prioritize more urgently.

Even with severe military losses and the effective loss of airspace control, Iran appears undeterred. Hostilities with Israel continue, and the possibility of Iranian retaliation against US targets is growing. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has indicated that the war will not end until Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is removed from power.

The US entry into the conflict has triggered a range of diplomatic responses — from enthusiastic support to fierce condemnation. Netanyahu praised Trump’s decision as a “courageous choice” that would “alter history.” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, meanwhile, called it an “outrageous, grave and unprecedented violation” of international law, insisting Tehran reserves “all options” to defend its interests.

Iran’s ambassador to the UN demanded an emergency Security Council session and called the strikes “premeditated acts of aggression.”

Russia, a close ally of Iran, “strongly condemned” the US action. Its Foreign Ministry labeled the strikes a “gross violation of international law,” while Dmitry Medvedev, deputy head of Russia’s Security Council, dismissed their impact and provocatively suggested some states might now help Iran obtain nuclear weapons.

China echoed the condemnation. The Chinese Foreign Ministry said the strikes “seriously violate the purposes and principles of the UN Charter,” and warned of regional destabilization.

Chinese Ambassador to the UN Fu Cong called on Israel to halt hostilities immediately and backed a UN resolution demanding an unconditional ceasefire. Chinese analysts have also warned that the conflict threatens global trade routes such as the Strait of Hormuz.

Other voices have called for diplomacy. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned of a “hazardous escalation,” stressing that “military solutions are not viable” and urging a return to negotiations.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer — positioning himself as a bridge between the US and Europe — highlighted the danger of the war spreading beyond the region. While stopping short of endorsing the US strikes, he reiterated that Iran must not develop nuclear weapons and called for negotiations to stabilize the region.

European powers had previously been pressing for a deal requiring Iran to halt uranium enrichment, curb its missile program and stop supporting proxy groups. But Iran has rejected a full halt, claiming its enrichment is for peaceful purposes.

With Western diplomacy faltering, regional actors are stepping in. Most Arab states — including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and the Gulf states — have condemned Israel’s strikes on Iran and are working to deescalate tensions.

Still, these efforts have so far achieved little. Strikes continue, ceasefire mechanisms remain absent and attempts to coordinate sanctions or arms embargoes have stalled.

A narrow diplomatic window may remain. Recent Geneva meetings involving Iranian, US, and European officials showed conditional openness to talks. But the latest US strikes have likely hardened positions.

Analysts say the only viable path forward begins with renewed diplomacy, ideally starting with a ceasefire. Yet fundamental disagreements over Iran’s nuclear ambitions and widespread distrust leave a comprehensive solution elusive.

Some fear that Israel, emboldened by US support, may escalate its military campaign to seek regime change in Tehran — a move that would risk greater instability across the Middle East, as the world has seen in the recent attack over Qatar. 

Others argue that Iran’s military retaliation is a necessary step before negotiations can resume. However, nobody seems to safely conclude just how far this retaliation will go. 

Firas Maksad, managing director for the Middle East and North Africa at Eurasia Group, told CNN that without such a response, Iran would lack both international leverage and domestic legitimacy to reenter talks.

Still, he later added: “Diplomacy is dead for the foreseeable future.”

With Iran and Israel entrenched and global powers divided, prospects for a diplomatic breakthrough appear slim. Yet Katulis believes regional “swing states” — such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE — could help shift the dynamic.

“One of the biggest brakes on further escalation lies right in the heart of the Middle East itself,” he said. “The key ‘swing states’ like Saudi Arabia and the UAE could lead more regional collective efforts to avoid further escalation by working publicly and quietly with the main combatants to find pathways toward a diplomatic settlement.”

In geopolitical terms, these “swing states” balance relationships with Washington, Moscow and Beijing — and can influence outcomes through neutrality or engagement. Katulis believes Riyadh, in particular, could help change the calculus.

Right now, he said, Israel and Iran “have more incentives to engage in military action than they do to pursue diplomacy.” But “the key powers in the region like Saudi Arabia could do even more than they are already doing to change the calculus for Israel and Iran.”

Saudi Arabia has condemned Israel’s actions as violations of international law and warned that continued escalation threatens long-term regional stability. The Kingdom has urged the UN Security Council to take meaningful steps to prevent further deterioration and has refused to allow its airspace to be used in military operations — a clear signal of its neutrality and strategic caution.

Looking ahead, the stakes remain dangerously high. Maksad has warned that unchecked escalation could have serious consequences.

“The last step in that escalatory ladder is to go after American bases, whether it is in the GCC, or perhaps even attempt to disrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, where some 20 percent of global energy passes through,” he told CNN.

As the war drags on, the fragmented international response highlights the fragility of global diplomacy and the difficulty of conflict resolution in an increasingly multipolar world.

For Tehran, halting enrichment altogether would not only undermine decades of strategic investment but also damage regime legitimacy. As Maksad put it, Tehran’s “entire prestige rests on enrichment.”

Still, he sees a potential way forward: Focusing not on enrichment itself, but on preventing a weapon. “That,” he said, “opens up the possibility of a negotiated outcome.”