Iran analyst
Two years after the October 7 attack, the Middle East drifts between competing promises and stubborn realities: Khamenei’s dream of regional “de-Americanization” lies in ruins while Netanyahu’s “new order” remains elusive.
Shortly after Hamas fighters stormed into Israel, Iran’s Supreme Leader declared that the region’s map was changing. Only days earlier, the Israeli prime minister had promised that the Jewish state would impose a new order on the region.
Yet two years on, neither vision has come to pass. Instead, the old balance has eroded, replaced by an emerging order that remains fluid and unsettled.
Fear and mistrust dominate—leaving Mideast states unwilling to make peace or all-out war.
Deterrence collapses
Much of the pre-October 7 order has unraveled in the two years since.
The deterrence between Iran and Israel, long a barrier to direct conflict, has collapsed. The 12-day war and a series of reciprocal strikes showed that both sides have abandoned old red lines without being able to impose a decisive outcome.
Iran’s regional network has also diminished. Syria has slipped from its grasp, Hezbollah is on the defensive, the Houthis in Yemen have taken serious blows and Iraq has distanced itself to preserve fragile stability.
For Israel, repeated strikes in Syria and even in Doha signal willingness to cross red lines, but rather than restoring security they have deepened regional anxiety.
The United States remains the main pillar of regional security for allies and partners as they seek to counter Iranian influence. But its authority and moral standing have been weakened as the death toll from attacks by Israel, armed and backed by Washington, have mounted.
President Trump appears more focused on managing the present rather than designing a new order, though his plan to head a transitional Board of Peace in Gaza and invitation to join the Abraham Accords normalization plan with Israel.
Reviving bases in Afghanistan and strengthening regional infrastructure reflect readiness, not intervention.
Washington avoids direct confrontation but seeks to keep control as an “active observer,” preventing collapse while doing little to rebuild order.
Tehran cornered
No country has felt the pressure more than Iran.
The punishing 12-day Israeli-US war showcased both its military reach and its vulnerabilities.
Israeli strikes on military and nuclear sites in Tehran marked the end of its long remove from combat, but frequent missile counterattacks gave its die-hards some fodder to extol Iranian arms.
Failed diplomacy with the West, the snapback of UN sanctions and lack of robust support from China and Russia have further constrained Tehran, whose economy remains tied largely to oil sales and cut off from trade corridors.
At home, growing public discontent has pushed the Islamic Republic into a contradictory path—easing some social restrictions while tightening political control through more executions, top-down discipline and frequent media gag orders.
Still a significant regional player, Tehran is increasingly isolated, with little plausible deterrence power beyond its diminished missile arsenal.
Caution abounds
Elsewhere, regional powers are focused on containment.
Qatar, after Israel’s botched attack strike on Hamas officials on Doha last month, secured fresh guarantees from Washington and treads carefully in its mediation role.
Turkey, while mending ties with the United States, worries about direct confrontation with Israel in Syria and is edging away from Moscow.
The Arab states astride Persian Gulf, meanwhile, are building defensive networks but avoiding escalation.
The Middle East has entered a period of “unfinished order”—born of war, off-balance and dominated by uncertainty.
Military power still matters but no longer suffices.
Governments are seeking stability on shifting ground: Turkey and Qatar lean toward Washington, Saudi Arabia pursues multilayered defenses with a new defense pact with Pakistan, and Israel chases a permanent but elusive peace through strength.
Gearing up
For Tehran, this unfinished order means enduring external pressure while suppressing discontent at home.
Iran’s military weight remains, but its political and economic base is eroded. The vision of the “axis of resistance” as a shield lies in tatters. Deeper isolation than ever appears to be the only discernible legacy of its decades-long support of armed allies.
Amid the tumult, one axiom holds: while others adapt to the region’s unfinished order, Tehran resists—bracing not for peace, but for the next confrontation.
On October 1, the Turkish president froze the assets of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Bank Sepah and several firms involved in nuclear fuel production and uranium conversion, moving in lockstep with the latest UN sanctions against Tehran.
Erdogan's order revived provisions of earlier UN Security Council resolutions that had been put on hold after the 2015 nuclear agreement with Tehran.
However, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) rejected reports that its assets had been frozen in Turkey.
Iranian media also said that several blacklisted bodies—including Bank Sepah and the AEOI itself—have no operations in Turkey, limiting the practical effect of the order.
Still, the move was significant: so far, the E3 (France, Britain and Germany), the European Union, the United States, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and now Turkey have announced compliance with the reinstated UN sanctions.
The United States welcomed Ankara’s step, while Russia and China dismissed the measures as “null and void.”
Iran's friend or foe?
Iranian media and political commentators reacted with sharp criticism.
“Turkey’s early alignment with anti-Iran sanctions resolutions and its symbolic recognition of them is objectionable,” the conservative daily Farhikhtegan wrote in an editorial titled “The Realities of Turkey’s Sanctions Against Iran".
Conservative commentator and former Javan editor-in-chief Abdollah Ganji expressed disbelief on X: “Apparently, Turkey has taken the lead in the snapback… it has outpaced the Westerners. It's unbelievable. 18 companies? By Erdogan's decree? Is this true? What is the opinion of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs?”
Ehsan Movahedian, another conservative analyst, told state TV: “While Russia and China have not joined anti-Iran sanctions and Pakistan seeks barter trade, Turkey has taken the lead. We must correctly identify our friends, enemies, and rivals, and act accordingly.”
Counterpoint: ‘only compliance with UN resolutions’
Not all commentary was condemnatory. Some argued Turkey’s action was more a matter of obligation than betrayal.
“Even if (Turkey) was an ally, it would still do so. So would Iran if it were in Turkey’s place,” journalist Reza Ghobeishawi wrote on X. “The problem is not with Turkey but in the mind and mistaken perceptions inside (Iran) that brought things to this point.”
Reza Nasri, an international affairs commentator, however, accused Erdogan of lacking courage to break with Western frameworks in post on X.
He argued that most states recognize that Iran's nuclear program poses no threat to international peace to be subjected to UN Charter's Chapter VII measures, so Turkey and other states have every legal justification not to comply.
“Only courage to stand by the law is required.”
Signal to the West?
Several Iranian outlets suggested Turkey’s decision was more about geopolitics than legality.
“These sanctions are mostly symbolic since many of the listed entities are not active in Turkey. Erdogan seems to be sending a message to Trump that he stands with the West,” Ali Heydari, a Turkey analyst at the IRGC-linked Tasnim News Agency, posted on X.
Shaya News argued: “At first glance, Ankara justifies the measure as compliance with international obligations and legal commitments toward the UN. But at a deeper level, the decision raises serious questions about neighborly relations, bilateral principles, and the extent of Turkey’s foreign policy independence under international pressure.”
Impact on Iran–Turkey relations
Iran’s Foreign Ministry has so far remained silent. But commentaries warn the move could hurt trust and trade between the two neighbors, particularly in energy and finance.
“This choice comes at the expense of sacrificing bilateral relations with Iran,” Shaya News wrote.
“The asset freeze not only casts a shadow over Iranian investors and businessmen’s trust in Turkey but could also deprive Turkey of the benefits of its thriving economic relations with its eastern neighbor.”
Farhikhtegan similarly warned that Tehran’s response should be “proportionate to Ankara’s alignment with the White House’s anti-Iran policies.” It added that Turkey’s status as a NATO member and US security ally cannot be ignored.
“Should Ankara move toward serious anti-Iran measures—whether sanctions or security-related—then Iran’s approach to Turkey must necessarily be recalibrated within a security framework,” the newspaper wrote.
