Bursting of overlapping crises threatens to reshape Middle East Ankara’s, Washington’s complex stakes

The ongoing protests in Iran, combined with the looming threats of military action by the US administration, highlight how deeply domestic politics in Middle Eastern states are intertwined with regional security dynamics and the broader balance of power. Iran is not the only source of instability.

Developments in Gaza, Syria, Sudan, and Yemen are simultaneously shaping the foreign policies of regional and global powers, reinforcing the idea that the Middle East rarely experiences crises in isolation. In the midst of these outbursts of conflict, Ankara and Washington are holding unique levers in the region that could be pulled if the situation further escalates.

Rather than presenting a single, contained emergency, the region is defined by multiple, overlapping conflicts whose effects spill across borders through refugee movements, rocket fire, disrupted trade routes, and the spread of ideologies.

As an article published by the National Interest notes, the Middle East feels unmistakably “on the boil” today. This is not because one war is escalating dramatically, but because several pressure points are heating up at the same time, collectively raising regional tensions. 

What distinguishes the current moment is the concurrency of crises rather than their novelty. Flashpoints such as the protests in Iran, the unresolved conflict in Gaza, and Yemen’s layered civil wars are unfolding simultaneously and interacting with one another. This overlap magnifies risks and narrows diplomatic options, making de-escalation far more difficult. Each conflict feeds into the others, increasing the likelihood of miscalculation by regional and external actors.

Iranian might and foreign branches

Iran’s internal unrest represents a severe stress test for the Islamic Republic’s governing system. Historically, when faced with domestic pressure, Tehran has oscillated between restraint and defiance in its foreign policy. This pattern has significant regional implications.

On one hand, Iran may attempt to avoid escalation abroad to reduce the risk of sanctions or direct military confrontation during a vulnerable period. On the other hand, domestic strain often strengthens hardline factions that view regional assertiveness as essential for deterrence, revolutionary credibility, and deflecting public anger toward external enemies.

This ambiguity does not remain confined within Iran’s borders. Tehran’s ties to Hezbollah, militias in Iraq and Syria, and the Houthis in Yemen mean that domestic instability has ripple effects across the region. Changes in Iran’s internal balance alter the strategic calculations of Israel, the Gulf states, and especially the United States, which must continually reassess whether deterrence, diplomacy, or patience best serves its interests.

Fragmented Yemen

Yemen illustrates the Middle East’s layered complexity. What began as a conflict between the Houthis and the internationally recognized government has evolved into several overlapping wars involving southern separatists, tribal factions, regional sponsors, and international stakeholders concerned with maritime security.

The Houthis’ alignment with Iran places Yemen within the broader confrontation between Tehran and Washington. US naval deployments and strikes related to Red Sea security show how a local conflict can escalate into a global issue.

At the same time, divisions within the anti-Houthi camp reveal the fragility of proxy coalitions. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have backed different local actors, particularly in South Yemen, where Riyadh supports the internationally recognized government while Abu Dhabi has aligned itself with southern separatists. These fractures demonstrate how prolonged warfare can strain alliances when local interests diverge.

Gaza resolution put on-hold

Despite the conflicts in Iran and Yemen enjoying the most attention in recent weeks, Gaza remains the emotional epicenter of regional turmoil. Even during lulls in active fighting, developments in Gaza continue to act as a political accelerant throughout the Middle East. Washington has recently announced the launch of the second phase of the ceasefire agreement, including the formation of a committee of Palestinian technocrats to govern the territory. Nevertheless, the scale of destruction and civilian suffering in recent years ensures that events in Gaza will continue to reverberate across regional capitals.

Competing allies inside Syria

Syria remains a permanently active fault line connecting multiple regional rivalries. Its fragmentation allows foreign militaries, militias, and intelligence services to operate in overlapping zones, turning localized incidents into broader regional crises. 

The article highlights Türkiye’s role in northern Syria, where Ankara maintains a substantial military presence to prevent Kurdish autonomous structures linked to the PKK and to manage refugee flows that have become a major domestic political issue. Turkish operations intersect uneasily with US partnerships with Kurdish forces, exposing strains within NATO over Middle East policy.

The United States also maintains a limited but symbolically important presence in eastern Syria, focused on counterterrorism and constraining Iranian influence. This reflects Washington’s broader approach of avoiding large-scale entanglement while preventing adversaries from consolidating control. According to the National Interest, the result is strategic ambiguity. Syria remains unstable not because any single actor desires chaos, but because no actor is willing or able to impose or facilitate a comprehensive settlement.

As the article's author argues, Türkiye and the United States occupy a distinctive position in today’s Middle East. Neither is a bystander, yet neither can fully control outcomes. Both operate across multiple theaters with overlapping and sometimes conflicting objectives.

Türkiye presents itself as a regional power balancing security concerns, nationalism, and pragmatic engagement, while the United States acts as a global power grappling with regional fatigue.

As conflicts increasingly intersect, the National Interest acknowledges that both are “powerful enough to influence but unable to determine outcomes,” and their next decisions—particularly regarding Iran—will shape whether the region’s simmering tensions escalate further.

By Nazrin Sadigova