The Middle East is gripped by a crisis whose effects are no longer limited to Iran, Israel, and Palestine but have also engulfed the global economy, energy markets, and international peace. The war that began after the US and Israeli attacks on Iran in February 2026 has upended the region’s political balance. Despite the ceasefire and diplomatic contacts, tensions have not only persisted, but reports emerging in the last week of October have also stoked fears of renewed military operations against Iran by Israel and the United States.
During this crisis, elections in Israel have also assumed extraordinary importance. In the elections held on October 27, 2026, voter turnout surged to 77.7 percent, the highest electoral turnout since 1999. Initial results and vote counting showed that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political alliance was struggling to secure the majority of 61 seats required to form a government. On the other hand, opposition parties may also need the support of parties representing Palestinian-origin Israeli citizens to form a government. This situation has opened the door to new political alignments in Israeli politics.
Before the elections, Netanyahu made the support of US President Donald Trump a cornerstone of his election campaign and tied the action against Iran to the future of his government. Trump also supported the Israeli prime minister and vowed to complete the military mission launched against Iran. In this way, the Iran issue has not remained merely a foreign policy dispute but has also become an important political issue within Israel’s electoral politics and for the US leadership, and it appears that following the election results, the United States and Israel have decided to unleash fresh attacks on Iran, which is also confirmed by the statements of the Israeli prime minister and the US president.
Whether Netanyahu governs Israel as prime minister or someone else does, the fundamental questions surrounding the Palestinian issue remain unchanged. Concerns regarding the expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, the seizure of land, the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, and the continued violations of Palestinians’ right to self-determination are not limited to any one government. Netanyahu’s right-wing allies have supported Zionist policies such as the annexation of the occupied West Bank and the displacement of Palestinians from Gaza. On the other hand, there are also parties in the Israeli opposition that take a hawkish stance against Iran. Therefore, it would be premature to automatically regard Netanyahu’s political weakness as a victory for justice for the Palestinians. The real litmus test is what practical policies the new government adopts regarding occupation, illegal settlements, and the rights of Palestinian civilians.
The United States and Israel have identified Iran’s nuclear program as one of the key triggers of the war, and Washington’s position is that Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, while Tehran links its nuclear program to peaceful purposes. Disagreements over the quantity of Iran’s enriched uranium, its monitoring, and a future nuclear agreement are major stumbling blocks to diplomatic efforts.
A burning question here is whether the objective of limiting Iran’s nuclear program is solely to protect global security, or whether the balance of regional power and the safeguarding of Israel’s military superiority are also factors in this dispute. The answer to this question should be sought not through political slogans alone but on the basis of the nuclear programs of all parties, international monitoring, and uniform principles. It is necessary for countries in the region, including Pakistan, to support a system in which no single state enjoys exceptional exemptions and international law is applied equally to all countries.
The same question looms over US policy: to what extent does its military intervention in the Middle East serve the interests of the American people? Citing estimates from the US Congressional Budget Office rather than the Council on Foreign Relations, Al Jazeera reported that by August 1, 2026, US Department of Defense spending on the war with Iran had ballooned to approximately $38 billion. The costs of continued military operations and pressure on global energy markets also raise economic questions for American citizens, and today, American analysts and the American public themselves are being forced to ask whether President Trump’s attack on Iran was intended to protect the security of the American people or merely to protect Israel and fuel the frenzy for war. This is because Iran posed no threat to the security of the American people, a fact that is apparent not only to the American public but to the entire world.
The Iran war has rattled global energy markets, while tensions in the Strait of Hormuz and fears of disruptions to oil shipments have created deep uncertainty regarding fuel, transportation, and the prices of essential commodities. Iran was already facing sanctions and economic pressure, while the war has further battered its economy. This crisis is also of particular importance to Pakistan because a prolonged war in the region could affect economic stability by increasing oil prices, the import bill, and inflation. At the same time, tensions between Iran, the Gulf countries, and other regional states also affect Pakistan’s diplomatic and security priorities.
The United States and Israel must understand that durable security cannot be achieved solely through airstrikes, military superiority, or weakening rival states. Iran must also avoid actions that could trigger further confrontation in the region. For sustainable peace, it is necessary for all parties to honor the ceasefire, move towards a verifiable agreement on the nuclear dispute, ensure free and safe maritime navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, and make the fundamental rights and right to self-determination of the Palestinians an essential part of negotiations, because further bloodshed would not constitute a victory for any one country but could cause devastating and irreparable damage to the entire region and the global economy.
