Redrawing the lines: How the Iran-Israel war is reshaping regional power

The sudden eruption of hostilities between Iran and Israel in the early hours of Friday has thrust the Middle East into a state of profound and potentially lasting transformation. As the region reels from the shock of open warfare between two long-standing adversaries, established power centers are shifting, and traditional rivalries and alliances are being reevaluated.

While speculation mounts over Egypt’s potential role as a mediator—an opportunity that could significantly bolster Cairo’s regional influence—the Gulf states find themselves confronted with a sobering recalibration of the strategic balance.

The possibility of a sharply tilted equilibrium in Israel’s favor has raised alarm, especially among those who have historically viewed Tehran as a hostile force, sometimes even an existential threat. What once was framed as a halt to Iran’s regional expansionism may now give way to a broader destabilization.

Egypt poised for diplomatic leadership

Egypt, which in recent months has demonstrated a greater openness towards engaging with Iran, appears uniquely positioned to serve as a central mediator capable of deescalating the current conflict. Though Cairo has much to lose from a fundamental collapse of the regional power balance, the crisis may also present an unprecedented opportunity to assert its diplomatic clout.

A senior Egyptian diplomat affiliated with the Iran portfolio told Al Manassa that Egyptian officials had communicated readiness to mediate during early exchanges with Iranian counterparts. However, Tehran reportedly insisted on exercising its right to respond militarily to Israeli aggression before entertaining any discussions of mediation.

This outbreak of hostilities occurred amid notable warming in Egypt-Iran relations, exemplified by a high-profile visit to Cairo by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi days before the conflict erupted. The visit was met with notable fanfare and interpreted by analysts as a major diplomatic overture between the two states.

This rapprochement was further underlined by Iran’s symbolic decision to rename Tehran’s Khaled Al-Islambouli Street—named after the assassin of President Anwar Sadat—to Hassan Nasrallah Street, a gesture that removed a long-standing irritant in bilateral relations.

Iran’s adversaries risk collateral damage

The military confrontation, which escalated rapidly after Israel’s targeted assassinations of Iranian military and nuclear figures, has seen Tehran retaliate with a series of ballistic missile barrages that inflicted significant and unusual damage on Tel Aviv.

Brig. Gen. Ahmed Farouk, a regional security expert and adviser at Egypt’s National Center for Strategic Studies, told Al Manassa that Iran has so far managed to withstand Israel’s strategy of “leadership decapitation”—a tactic designed to disrupt the command structure of adversarial states by targeting top officials.

According to Farouk, Iran’s swift 17-hour turnaround in delivering a calibrated response suggests a high level of organizational resilience and pre-planned contingency structures.

In a counterintuitive twist, Farouk argues, Iran’s display of military resilience may ultimately benefit the Gulf states by checking Israeli regional dominance—an outcome at odds with the long-held belief that Iranian weakness would serve Gulf interests. “Neither Turkey nor Saudi Arabia seem poised to replace Iran’s regional footprint,” Farouk noted. “Should Israel enjoy uncontested dominance, the entire region—including the Gulf—will face the repercussions.”

Tehran's nuclear program a red line 

Despite the scale of Israel’s operations, Farouk does not believe that Tel Aviv will succeed in dismantling Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. He forecasts a likely return to the negotiating table once Tehran reclaims a semblance of regional dignity—possibly following a symbolic or tactical military win.

Iran’s announcement on Saturday that it would suspend participation in nuclear talks with the US signaled its strategic pivot. Tehran described the negotiations as “meaningless” in light of Israel’s aggression, a stance that mirrors its earlier rebuff of Cairo’s mediation proposal.

On Tuesday, the G7 issued a statement—left unsigned by US President Donald Trump—urging deescalation while affirming both opposition to an Iranian nuclear arsenal and support for “Israel’s right to defend itself.”

Although Washington has consistently denied involvement in the attacks, Trump praised their execution and equipment in a post on his Truth Social platform. Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested the military action could pave the way for a long-term nuclear agreement with Tehran.

Gulf states diverge from hardline postures

Emirati political scientist Abdulkhaleq Abdulla sees the unfolding crisis as a seminal moment that could signal the decline of Iran’s regional influence. Despite acknowledging the difficulty of dismantling Iran’s nuclear program—given its geographic dispersal—he believes the region is witnessing the twilight of the so-called “Shiite crescent” and the broader Iranian resistance axis.

In contrast to Farouk’s cautious optimism about Iran’s endurance, Abdulla anticipates a reinvigorated Arab “moderation bloc,” buoyed by what he calls a “new Syria” and a post-Hezbollah Lebanon. The traditional coalition of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Jordan has uniformly condemned Israel’s initial assault on Iran. A joint statement from 22 Arab and Islamic countries followed, denouncing the strikes and reaffirming a collective rejection of nuclear proliferation in the region—implicitly referencing Israel’s undeclared arsenal.

No clear victor

The war marks a dramatic rupture with previous patterns of Israeli-Iranian confrontation, where Tehran’s responses were often symbolic and limited in scope. This time, Iran’s immediate and forceful retaliation reflects a strategic shift backed by a regional diplomatic safety net—including, paradoxically, tacit support from some of its traditional adversaries.

Farouk remains cautious in drawing conclusions. “These are opening salvos,” he said, “and it’s premature to project a post-conflict regional order.”

He warned that if Israel fails to fundamentally shift the balance of power, Iran’s leadership could double down on acquiring a nuclear deterrent, particularly with a new generation of commanders whose motivations remain opaque.

Fatima Alsamdi, an Iran specialist at the Al Jazeera Center for Studies, believes that only two outcomes could avert a broader regional war: the reinvention of Iran as a non-threatening actor or a substantial weakening of Israel’s regional posture.

“De-escalation is only possible if one expansionist pole is broken,” Alsamdi told Al Manassa. Abdulla concurs, arguing that Iranian decline would be welcomed across the region, which he contends has suffered decades of instability—from Iraq to Syria to Yemen—rooted in Tehran’s assertive regional agenda.