The Middle East’s once-in-a-century moment

Handled poorly, this moment could harden into another generational conflict - an endless loop of grievance, extremism, and proxy warfare that feels less like the 21st century and more like a regression into ideological tribalism. Handled well, boldly and decisively, it could inaugurate a Middle Eastern transformation akin to a 21st-century industrial revolution. Trade would replace terror. Integration would supplant isolation. Opportunity would overtake radicalism as the region’s dominant currency.

The Islamic Republic is not merely an adversarial state; it is a failed one - economically hollowed out, morally bankrupt, and sustained almost entirely through repression and the export of violence. For decades, Tehran has poured its national wealth into proxy militias, terror networks, and the pockets of corrupt leaders, while leaving its own people poorer, angrier, and increasingly disillusioned. It is a regime that has mastered the art of regional sabotage while failing at the most basic tasks of governance.

Today, that system is exposed and weakened. Its regional investments are collapsing. Its proxies are degraded. Its deterrence is eroding. The unprecedented level of U.S.-Israeli military coordination - manifest in operational freedom, intelligence dominance, and the systematic dismantling of Iran’s strategic assets - has created a window that may not reopen for decades.

This moment demands clarity of purpose. The objective is not punishment for punishment’s sake, nor regime collapse by accident. It is the deliberate, authoritative defeat of a radical clerical system that has destabilized an entire region, alongside the simultaneous elevation of a credible transitional pathway for Iran’s future.

That pathway exists. It requires international coordination, diplomatic courage, and a willingness to say openly what many already acknowledge privately. Iran’s people deserve a post-theocratic state, and the region will not stabilize until they have one. Supporting a transitional authority capable of shepherding Iran toward democratic legitimacy is not imperial overreach; it is strategic realism.

There is also a practical question that Western leaders can no longer afford to dodge: what comes next. History has shown that removing a regime without a credible transitional alternative invites chaos. In Iran’s case, such an alternative exists. Reza Pahlavi has been explicit that he does not seek to rule Iran as a monarch, but to serve as a unifying transitional figure - one who can preside over a temporary governing framework and shepherd the country toward free and democratic elections. Unlike exile figures manufactured by foreign capitals, Pahlavi carries both symbolic legitimacy inside Iran and diplomatic credibility abroad. His message, centered on secular governance, national reconciliation, and reintegration with the West, aligns closely with the aspirations of a generation of Iranians who have already made clear that the Islamic Republic does not speak for them. If the United States, Israel, and their democratic partners are serious about a stable post-theocratic Iran, they should be coordinating now to support a transition process that Iranians themselves can recognize as legitimate.

If Iran’s radical apparatus is decisively dismantled, the ripple effects would be enormous. Terror networks would lose their principal financier. Youth across the region would gain access not just to hope, but to tangible economic horizons. Trade routes, tourism, investment, and regional cooperation - long held hostage by militancy - would finally have room to regrow.

Yemen must follow.

For years, U.S. policy has treated the war primarily as a humanitarian crisis, allowing Iran’s most durable proxy - the Houthis - to entrench itself. That failure has been compounded by a quiet but consequential rift between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Riyadh has sought a unified Yemeni state capable of securing its borders. Abu Dhabi, by contrast, has prioritized ports, maritime access, and local militias, often backing southern actors whose ambitions undercut national reunification. The result has been a fractured anti-Houthi front and a conflict that drags on to no one’s benefit except Tehran.

Washington must now impose strategic clarity. That means backing a single legitimate governing authority, pressing its Gulf partners to align behind it, and pairing economic and military pressure with a credible political end state. A unified Yemen is essential not only to defeating the Houthis, but to securing the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and ending a war that has devastated the country and destabilized the region.

Lebanon cannot be half-fixed.

Lebanon is what prolonged ambiguity looks like. For years, Hezbollah has been allowed to operate as both militia and political actor, eroding Lebanese sovereignty while hollowing out the state from within. International diplomacy has treated this duality as an inconvenience rather than a fatal flaw, even as the group entrenched Iran’s influence, crippled the economy, and reduced a once-vibrant country to managed dysfunction.

That ambiguity must end. The United States, with France playing a supporting role, must fully green-light Israeli military operations to dismantle what remains of Hezbollah’s military infrastructure. Partial degradation is not enough. The objective must be complete disarmament, paired with safe passage into exile for irreconcilable elements of Hezbollah’s leadership. Anything less preserves the conditions for paralysis.

The diplomatic groundwork is already underway. United States-Lebanon-Israel coordination has begun to outline a post-Hezbollah future in which the Lebanese state regains a monopoly on force and access to international investment. But diplomacy without sustained pressure will fail. Lebanon cannot be stabilized halfway.

Syria is no longer frozen in time. After years of devastation, the outlines of a post-proxy settlement are beginning to emerge. Iran’s military infrastructure has been degraded, Russia’s leverage is weakening, and regional actors are quietly testing whether Syria can be brought back into a broader framework of integration rather than left as a permanent ward of conflict.

That outcome will require hard, transactional diplomacy. The United States must press both Damascus and Jerusalem to make serious concessions in service of durable stability: territorial adjustments in exchange for security guarantees; Syrian commitments to prevent cross-border militancy in exchange for Western-backed infrastructure and reconstruction projects; and economic reintegration conditioned on behavior, not rhetoric.

This is also the moment to decisively sideline outside spoilers. As Iran’s footprint recedes, United States policy should focus on reducing Russian and Turkish leverage while anchoring Syria’s future to regional trade, energy, and technology networks rather than military patronage. Reintegration is not a reward; it is a tool to lock in post-conflict realities and prevent Syria from again becoming a staging ground for regional war.

Syria’s path will not be linear. But the alternative - indefinite isolation and managed collapse - has already failed. The choice now is between conditional reintegration and permanent instability.

Gaza is different.

There will be no quick fix - no decisive strike that suddenly transforms the reality on the ground. Gaza lies in ruins: physically, psychologically, institutionally. Rebuilding it will take decades, not years. Demilitarization is necessary but insufficient. What Gaza ultimately requires is something far harder: deradicalization, education, trauma recovery, and a credible vision of dignity for a generation that has known only war.

That project will demand sustained attention and massive financing, along with an uncomfortable truth: peace there cannot be outsourced or rushed. But if the United States and its allies commit to a long-term reconstruction and integration effort - measured in decades rather than election cycles - Gaza’s children could one day become beneficiaries, rather than victims, of a transformed Middle East.

Finally, Washington must stop indulging regional actors who hedge their bets. For years, certain governments have sought the benefits of Western markets and security guarantees while simultaneously financing or sheltering extremist groups and exporting destabilizing ideology. That model should no longer be tolerated. Regional integration is a choice, not an entitlement. States that wish to participate must meet clear conditions, including an end to terror financing, the dismantling of extremist networks operating from their territory, and verifiable limits on ideological export. Those that refuse should expect consequences, not accommodation - including reduced market access, diplomatic isolation, and the loss of political cover in international forums.

Finally, Israel, too, must adapt.

A special relationship is not a blank check; it is a partnership built on shared values and mutual responsibility. As the region changes, Israel must do its part: confront domestic extremism, abandon expansionist illusions, and reinforce the democratic foundations that made it a natural Western ally in the first place. Strategic success abroad cannot coexist with moral erosion at home.

If all of this sounds ambitious, that is because it is. But ambition is precisely what this moment demands.

Imagine a Middle East where a young Iranian engineer builds software alongside regional partners rather than weapons against them. Where Yemeni ports serve as shared arteries of global trade, moving goods instead of missiles. Where Lebanese universities compete and collaborate with regional institutions, exporting ideas rather than militias. Where Syrians rebuild their cities with neighbors and investors instead of fleeing across borders. Where children in Gaza grow up fluent not in martyrdom, but in possibility, dignity, and work.

History rarely offers moments this clear or this open. When it does, the greatest risk is not ambition, but hesitation. Its cost is not paid in headlines, but across generations.

The question now is not whether the Middle East can change. It is whether today’s leaders - and today’s parents - are willing to act decisively enough to ensure that the next generation inherits something better than the one we were given. Because in the end, geopolitics is not only about borders and balance sheets. It is about what we choose to pass down: whether we raise our sons and daughters to memorize grievances, or to build futures; whether we teach them to fear the world, or to repair it.

This moment will not last forever. But if seized with courage and clarity, it could mark the beginning of a region defined not by perpetual conflict, but by the quiet, revolutionary act of stability and prosperity itself.