“If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading.”

— Lao Tzu (571–531 BCE)

The Ominous Horizon

“I’m not a prophet, I make windows,” Michel Foucault once said, emphasizing that his goal is not to predict the future but to reveal the frameworks through which we interpret the present. This is especially important in the region often—and problematically—called the Middle East. A label born from colonial mapping and strategic convenience, the “Middle East” represents less a clear geographical area and more a projection of external power. The term downplays the cultural, political, and historical richness of what could more accurately be called, in my humble opinion, the Crescent. As this region faces renewed geopolitical turmoil, this essay uses the lens of Realist theory to open a window—one that reveals the complex logic of power shaping its future. In a global system characterized by fragmentation, rivalry, and shifting alliances, it is Realism—not prophecy—that offers the clearest view of the storm ahead.

The recent Saudi–Pakistani Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement, signed on 17 September 2025 during Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s visit to Riyadh, signals a deeper realignment in regional security dynamics beyond a conventional pact. It follows heightened tensions after Israel’s controversial 9 September airstrike in Doha. The attack provoked widespread condemnation and led to an emergency OIC-Arab League summit in Doha on 15 September, attended by nearly 60 countries. These developments underscore a shifting geopolitical landscape in which traditional alliances are being re-evaluated amid escalating regional crises.

Despite hosting Al Udeid Air Base—the largest U.S. military installation in the Middle East—and maintaining close ties with Washington, including a recent high-profile gift of a $400 million Boeing 747-8 jet to the U.S. Department of Defense, Qatar was unable to prevent the September 9, 2025, Israeli airstrike in Doha. The strike, which killed six people, including a Qatari security official, was condemned by Doha as a violation of its sovereignty. The incident revealed the limits of U.S. security guarantees when faced with Israeli unilateral actions, despite Qatar's strategic importance and the American military presence on its soil. For other Gulf and Muslim-majority nations, the attack highlighted a harsh reality: even strong alliances with the United States do not guarantee immunity from Israeli operations. It reaffirmed a core principle of political realism captured in Thucydides’ Melian Dialogue: “The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.”

These changes have significant implications. The traditional principles of deterrence and understanding of alliance-building are being rewritten. Regional powers are reevaluating their security strategies, becoming more independent from Western approaches. New alliances are forming—less motivated by ideology and more by survival and practical interests. In this evolving security dilemma, states that depend on others for security risk becoming inactive participants in a system they no longer control.

Israel: A Case Study in Strategic Autonomy

Israel has become what some call a “Frankenstein of modern geopolitics.” Originally established and supported as a dependent ally of the United States, it now actively pursues its own regional dominance, often diverging from Washington’s broader strategic goals. Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu’s policies, which are shaped not only by domestic political considerations and nationalist ambitions but also by his personal desire to avoid ongoing legal challenges, remind us of political scientist John Mearsheimer’s offensive realism theory. The theory suggests that regional powers tend to aim for dominance, limited only by their assessment of potential risks.

The recent strike on Doha is a case in point. The U.S. response was accepted willy-nilly. The attack, however, sent a clear message: Israeli strategic decisions are increasingly independent of American oversight. For the Muslim world, it underscored a fundamental reality—that U.S. protection is conditional and may not always be reliable. As Hans Morgenthau warned, “Moral outrage alone cannot secure survival; only credible power can.”

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan: An Emerging Realignment

The Saudi–Pakistani agreement goes beyond a simple bilateral gesture; it signifies a shared acknowledgment of the limits of relying on external support. Saudi Arabia provides financial aid, religious legitimacy, and political influence; Pakistan offers military expertise, nuclear deterrence, and strategic depth. Together, they lay the foundation for an emerging Muslim security framework.

As John Bew argues, transformative alliances often originate from shared humiliation. These alliances, if formed, might serve as a pivotal moment, allowing Muslim-majority states to shift from merely reacting to global power structures to actively shaping their strategic future. It offers a potential foundation for strategic action, based not on grievance but on capacity-building.

Iran: From Rivalry to Pragmatism

Adversaries can also adapt to changing circumstances. Recent reports of high-level talks between Saudi Arabia and Iran show a growing awareness of shared vulnerabilities. Years of sectarian rivalry have caused regional instability and proxy conflicts. However, new security concerns—such as economic pressures, regional isolation, and shifting global alliances—are leading to a more practical reassessment.

History teaches us valuable lessons. When facing existential threats like the Mongol invasions in the 13th century, Muslim leaders across different regions—which include Sultan Jalal al-Din Mangburni of the Khwarazmian Empire, the Ayyubid rulers in Egypt and Syria, and the Mamluk sultans Qutuz and Baybars—put aside rivalries to form alliances against a common enemy. The Mamluks’ decisive victory at the Battle of Ain Jalut in 1260 halted the Mongol advance into the Levant, demonstrating the power of unity in tough times. Ibn Khaldun’s concept of ‘asabiyyah’—social cohesion as the foundation of power—suggests that such unity, created under pressure, can endure if built on shared strategic goals. This idea remains relevant today, even for Middle Eastern nations and smaller states like Bangladesh. They need to reassess their security strategies to align or adjust their friendships and alliances, fostering strong regional partnerships and social unity to safeguard their sovereignty and navigate complex geopolitical challenges.

Gaza: The Moral and Strategic Center

Amid ongoing geopolitical shifts, Gaza remains both a humanitarian tragedy and a powerful symbol of moral and strategic urgency. Its suffering echoes far beyond its borders—from Cairo to Jakarta—raising not only global human rights concerns but also deep emotional and spiritual responses rooted in Islamic tradition. In Islam, periods of collective weakness are often seen as tests of unity and integrity. As one authentic Hadith describes, the Muslim community may become “numerous, yet powerless—like foam upon the sea,” emphasizing the dangers of disunity and inaction.

For Israel, Gaza is both a constant security concern and a justification for assertive military and political actions. For the Muslim world, however, Gaza has become a test of moral authority and strategic consistency. Continued inaction or reliance on empty rhetoric risks damaging both, exposing the gap between claimed solidarity and actual response.

Strategic Memory: Learning from History’s Hard Lessons

As the old saying goes, the best lesson from history is that few truly learn from it—and so it repeats. Yet, for those willing to observe carefully, the past provides critical insights into the dynamics of power, unity, and survival. The decline of the Ottoman Empire shows the dangers of internal disunity and unchecked external ties. In contrast, the 1955 Bandung Conference and the birth of the Non-Aligned Movement demonstrated that strategic independence is possible, even under the looming influence of superpowers. The 1973 oil embargo also proved that coordinated, collective action—even if temporary—can significantly disrupt global power balances.

Afghanistan stands as another instructive example: despite being one of the world’s poorest and most fragile states, it has survived successive waves of imperial ambition—from the 19th-century “Great Game” between Britain and Russia, to the Soviet invasion, and most recently, the two-decade-long U.S.-NATO occupation. Its endurance, however costly, illustrates how terrain, national cohesion, and resistance shaped by long-term strategic resolve can outlast even overwhelming force.

 

More recently, the failures of the Gulf Wars and the chaos caused by the Arab Spring serve as cautionary tales—showing how disunity and confusion invite external control and internal breakdown. Together, these historical events confirm a key realist truth: survival and influence depend on more than just high ideals; they require credible power, internal unity, and strategic clarity. Even for smaller or non-aligned nations, history demonstrates that when these elements come together, they can change the course of global events.

A Realist Forecast: Three Strategic Trajectories

This isn't a prophecy from Nostradamus or Jeane Dixon, but a realistic assessment. Looking ahead, three likely paths emerge for the Muslim world:

Continued Fragmentation. Muslim states remain politically divided, with no unified strategic stance. Israeli assertiveness goes unchecked; mainly, U.S. policy continues to fluctuate, and Gaza’s suffering becomes a permanent fixture in regional awareness. Popular disillusionment deepens the gap between ruling elites and their populations, fueling instability and cynicism.

Pragmatic Alignment. A shift toward practical coordination among key regional powers—such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey—sets the stage for credible deterrence. In response, Israel moderates its actions, recognizing increasing costs. This alignment, while not idealistic, gradually restores some sovereignty and dignity to the Muslim world.

Civilizational Awakening. A deeper transformation occurs, driven by shared shame and a collective desire for self-rule. This results in the creation of lasting security and economic systems based on local values and regional collaboration. Based on Ibn Khaldun’s cyclical theory of civilizational rise and fall, this approach indicates that after long periods of crisis, renewal is possible—if visionary leaders emerge to harness asabiyyah and strategic foresight.

The U.S. Paradox

President Trump’s regional tour revealed the contradiction at the core of American engagement: while providing symbolic reassurance to certain regimes, it also highlighted the transactional and often inconsistent nature of U.S. alliances. Qatar’s experience serves as a clear example—despite holding significant financial leverage, including strategic deals and diplomatic goodwill, it was unable to obtain protection or respect for its sovereignty.

As Hans Morgenthau warned, idealism without power has little influence in international politics. Israel’s ability to act unilaterally—even with a significant U.S. military presence in the region—highlights a more profound security dilemma. While Israel projects strategic confidence, many Muslim states remain divided and inactive, unintentionally reinforcing the very asymmetry they seek to challenge. The real challenge, therefore, is not to rely on reactive diplomacy or external guarantees but to build credible deterrence—through unity, strategic clarity, and tangible capabilities rooted in regional aspirations.

 

The Gathering Storm

A perfect storm seems to be forming—driven by a convergence of collective humiliation, strategic incoherence, moral urgency, external pressure, and widespread inaction. Developments such as the Saudi–Pakistani security agreement, the tentative Saudi–Iranian warm-up, a potential Türkiye–Qatar alignment, and the enduring centrality of Gaza suggest that a new strategic equilibrium is possible—yet far from guaranteed.

Unity without power is ineffective. Power without unity is perilous. And continued inaction risks continued marginalization. The Muslim world now stands at a decisive crossroads: remain trapped in dependency and paralysis, or pursue strategic actions through coordination, realism, and credible capacity-building.

Conclusion: The Crescent’s Choice

The storm is more than just a metaphor; it is becoming a real threat. Its dangerous semicircle could fall apart, while a navigable semicircle can unite people for safety. Humiliation might turn into despair or grow into resolve. Fragmentation may continue or be replaced by strategic unity. The Muslim world faces not only disaster but also an opportunity for renewal—if it acts quickly and decisively.

A key lesson for everyone is that no external actor can assure sovereignty. Strategic strength must be built and maintained from within. Decisions made in Riyadh, Islamabad, Tehran, Doha, and Ankara will shape the future—not just of individual nations but of a civilization facing modern geopolitical challenges. Where Dhaka fits into this geopolitical landscape is perhaps the most time-sensitive question.

The storm is approaching, and its power is inevitable. Still, leadership rooted in realism, unified from within, and decisive in action can navigate through the tempest. Those who fail to do so, as history shows, will be left behind. The Crescent’s future remains uncertain, but its opportunity to act is, by all signs, ‘now’.

 

Writer: Commodore Syed Misbah Uddin Ahmad, (C), NUP, ndc, afwc, psc, BN (retd), Director General, Bangladesh Institute of Maritime Research and Development (BIMRAD). Email: misbah28686@gmail.com