The escalating confrontation between Iran, Israel and the US is exposing fractures in the global order, raising nuclear risks and reshaping Gulf security dynamics, according to two leading policy experts.
Speaking to Anadolu on the sidelines of the Stratcom Summit in Istanbul on Saturday, Jon Alterman, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and Nancy Okail, CEO of the Center for International Policy, discussed the geopolitical impact of the widening conflict and its possible long-term consequences.
Nancy Okail, CEO of the Center for International Policy
Global order under strain
Asked whether divided international reactions to the conflict signal a weakening Western-led order, both experts agreed that the global system is already undergoing significant transformation.
Alterman said the shift partly reflects changes in US foreign policy, particularly under President Donald Trump.
"President Trump has gone to the UN certainly in his first term, every year, and said that every country has to pursue its own interests... So the whole idea of international order, I think a lot of people in this administration consider (it) to be a way to weaken the United States to no advantage," Alterman said.
He added that the war could accelerate this transformation.
"There really is a rupture. And what we should expect the international order to be able to do... may well be very different after this war, however it turns out, than it was before."
Okail argued that the erosion of the global order has been unfolding for years.
"The international order is weakening, but it did not start today... This is the result of incremental erosions of international law and the undermining of multilateral institutions," she said.
She noted that countries in the Global South had recognized this earlier, while Western powers are only now feeling the consequences.
Gulf security: Closer to Washington, but with growing doubts
Iran’s drone and missile attacks on Gulf countries could push regional states toward stronger US security ties, Alterman said.
"Countries want more security. The only country that can provide security to other countries, at any scale, remains the United States."
However, he added Gulf states will likely continue balancing diplomacy with Iran alongside their US partnerships.
Okail agreed that Gulf countries may align with Washington in the short term but warned that confidence in US control over regional escalation has weakened.
She pointed to recent Israeli strikes and US involvement as a turning point that challenged the long-standing assumption that Washington could restrain Israel, increasing regional uncertainty and eroding perceptions of stability.
Rising nuclear risks
Following strikes near Israel’s Dimona facility and Iran’s Natanz enrichment site, concerns about nuclear escalation have intensified.
Alterman downplayed the likelihood of deliberate nuclear confrontation.
"I don't think that we're heading toward a nuclear confrontation... there's enough concern with how that might impact civilians that neither one really wants that."
Okail, however, warned that even accidental escalation poses serious risks.
"Mistakes can happen... radioactive leaks... all these things put people in danger, even if these countries don't use nuclear weapons."
She also referenced warnings from the International Atomic Energy Agency about risks linked to attacks near nuclear infrastructure.
US troop deployment and diplomatic pressure
The deployment of roughly 3,000 US troops from the 82nd Airborne Division highlights Washington’s dual-track strategy, Alterman said.
"The US view is that diplomacy is made stronger by having military allies."
However, he cautioned that military positioning can also increase the risk of unintended escalation and noted that a diplomatic breakthrough does not appear imminent.
Okail interpreted the move as evidence Washington does not fully control the conflict’s trajectory.
She said the simultaneous pursuit of diplomacy while deploying troops signals uncertainty and increases fears of deeper US involvement.
Risks of escalation and miscalculation
Both experts warned that miscalculations could quickly expand the conflict.
Alterman noted that relatively small incidents have historically triggered larger US military responses and emphasized that modern warfare, even with precision targeting, often fails to achieve political outcomes.
Okail highlighted the unprecedented volatility in the region.
She warned that simultaneous military operations and diplomatic efforts risk undermining trust and increasing the likelihood of accidental escalation.
She also stressed that diplomacy itself has become a casualty of the conflict, with negotiations repeatedly overshadowed by new strikes.
Lasting changes in region
Even if the war ended immediately, both experts said the region has already changed.
Alterman pointed to Iran’s demonstrated ability to threaten key maritime routes and global energy flows, even without fully blocking them.
"Just an announcement of an intention... may be enough. That's a very low threshold."
He said this will force governments to rethink global energy security and risk assessments.
Okail said the war has permanently damaged perceptions of security in the Gulf.
"The damage that happened with this war is irreversible... The sense of security... has been eliminated even if the war stops."
She also noted growing regional coordination among Middle Eastern countries that were previously rivals, though she stressed that long-term stability requires domestic legitimacy rather than reliance on external powers.
War’s outcome still uncertain
Both analysts warned the conflict could worsen.
Alterman cautioned against assuming the conflict is nearing its end. "It's not yet clear to me if we've seen the worst in this war... It would be dangerous to think that we're very close to the end."
Okail also framed the conflict as part of broader global instability, linking it to disruptions in energy markets, fertilizer exports and agricultural supply chains worldwide.
She said the war highlights how regional conflicts now produce global consequences, reinforcing the idea that modern security threats cannot be contained geographically or resolved solely through military means.
