The Middle East has long been a focal point of global geopolitical tension, marked by persistent instability, regional rivalries, and a complex web of alliances and conflicts. In recent decades, the region’s militarization has intensified, driven by states’ ambitions to bolster national security, assert regional dominance, and navigate shifting international alignments. The report “Militarization in the Middle East: Strategic Autonomy or Escalation?” by Prof. Goran Ilikj, Saba Fatima, Francesco Salesio Schiavi, and Daniel Sunter provides a detailed and nuanced assessment of this phenomenon. Drawing on their expertise across academic institutions and think tanks, the authors analyze the arms race dynamics, defense modernization efforts, and chemical weapons strategies shaping the region’s security landscape today. This article distills key findings from their research to illuminate whether Middle Eastern militarization serves as a pathway toward strategic autonomy or fuels an escalating spiral of conflict.
The Theoretical Foundations of Arms Races
The militarization trend in the Middle East can be understood through the lens of long-established theories of arms races and conflict. Foundational work by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern in game theory laid the groundwork for interpreting military competition as a strategic interaction between rivals. Thomas Schelling further developed this theory in his seminal book, The Strategy of Conflict (1960), emphasizing deterrence, credible threats, and bargaining power as core factors influencing state behavior. Schelling’s insights on signaling and strategic communication remain highly relevant for interpreting contemporary Middle Eastern arms buildups.
Further, Lewis Fry Richardson’s pioneering application of mathematical models to arms races conceptualized the phenomenon as an interaction of reciprocal military buildup, internal pressures, and economic constraints. This cyclical “action-reaction” process forms the backbone of what is known as the security dilemma, where a state’s attempt to increase its own security paradoxically undermines it by provoking others to respond similarly, thereby escalating tensions. These foundational theories explain many of the behaviors observed among Middle Eastern states, as the region features enduring mistrust, frequent conflicts, and an intense desire for strategic advantage.
Characteristics of the Regional Arms Race
The Middle East’s arms race is fueled by a combination of external security threats, internal motivations, and economic and political factors. Key regional players—Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Turkiye, and Egypt—each pursue military modernization for a mixture of deterrence, power projection, and regime survival. External factors such as perceived threats from rival states, proxy conflicts, and global power competition intensify this dynamic. Meanwhile, nationalism, ideological ambitions, and domestic political considerations also drive defense spending increases, often independent of immediate security needs.
Economic constraints and public opposition pose limiting factors, yet militarization persists due to a prevailing environment of insecurity. The region’s history of external interventions and ideological polarization exacerbates these tendencies, creating a volatile security landscape. Efforts at achieving military self-sufficiency through localized defense industries—such as Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 and the UAE’s EDGE Group—represent attempts to mitigate overreliance on foreign arms suppliers but also add complexity to the regional balance.
Saudi Arabia: Regional Military Power and Modernization
Saudi Arabia stands as a dominant military power in the Gulf, spending approximately $61 billion on defense in 2023 alone. Its modernization focuses particularly on air defense, advanced fighter jets, and missile defense systems, primarily sourced from the United States, Spain, and France. Despite a recent drop in arms imports, Saudi Arabia aims to enhance domestic production capacity as part of its Vision 2030 initiative. The kingdom’s military buildup is driven largely by the perceived threat from Iran and the ongoing conflict in Yemen, where Saudi-led airstrikes have resulted in significant civilian casualties. Saudi Arabia also shares a covert strategic antipathy with Israel toward Iran, although formal ties remain contingent on Israeli-Palestinian peace progress.
Iran: Military Modernization and Asymmetric Strategy
Iran’s militarization is shaped by its need to counter external pressures, notably from the US-led coalition and regional rivals. Largely excluded from the global arms market due to sanctions, Iran has invested heavily in indigenous military development, focusing on asymmetric warfare capabilities such as ballistic and cruise missiles, drones, and proxy networks across Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) plays a central role in shaping Iran’s military doctrine and supporting allied militias aligned with its anti-Western agenda. Collaborations with Russia and China bolster Iran’s defense capacity, particularly through advanced air defense systems like the S-300 and S-400.
Iran’s approach is marked by a calibrated ambiguity, particularly with regard to chemical weapons, where it operates in strategic gray zones that challenge international norms and verification mechanisms. Its evolving doctrine includes dual-use research and potential deployment of novel incapacitating agents under the guise of law enforcement or counterterrorism.
Israel: Technological Superiority and Preventive Doctrine
Israel maintains a distinct qualitative military edge (QME) backed by substantial US military aid. Its defense strategy emphasizes maintaining air superiority, intelligence capabilities, cyber warfare, and missile defense systems like the Iron Dome. Israel’s arms exports, including advanced technology, reach multiple international recipients, reflecting its robust defense industrial base. The Israeli national security doctrine features a concept of “Strategic Prevention,” advocating proactive neutralization of threats before they fully develop. This approach supports ongoing military campaigns against groups like Hamas, reflecting Israel’s focus on preemptive measures to safeguard its territorial security.
United Arab Emirates: Strategic Diversification and Military Modernization
The UAE has pursued a strategy of strategic diversification and economic development, seeking a balanced foreign policy that bridges East and West while maintaining sovereignty and middle power status. Militarily, it invests in cutting-edge air defense systems, drones, and fighter jets, primarily sourced from the United States and Europe. The UAE is also strengthening its local defense industry through partnerships like EDGE Group, aiming to reduce import dependence. Regionally, the UAE exerts influence via involvement in conflicts such as Yemen and Libya, including the use of paramilitary groups and mercenaries. Its expanding ties with China, Russia, and BRICS members further reflect a multipolar alignment strategy.
Qatar: Soft Power and Strategic Balancing
Qatar’s militarization is complemented by a strategy of soft power projection and diplomatic balancing. Following its 2017 Gulf blockade, Qatar enhanced its military capabilities and cemented strategic partnerships with the US, France, and Turkiye. It hosts the largest US military base in the region, Al Udeid Air Base, providing leverage in regional security. Qatar combines selective military investment with energetic mediation roles and global media influence, notably through Al Jazeera, positioning itself as a modernizing force amid intense regional rivalries.
Turkiye: Strategic Autonomy and Defense Industry Growth
Turkiye balances its NATO membership with assertive regional foreign policy ambitions. It has shifted procurement policies toward reducing dependence on Western suppliers by developing indigenous technologies in drones, missile defense, and armored vehicles. Sales to Middle Eastern and North African states reinforce both economic and strategic ties. Its use of advanced Russian missile systems like the S-400 signals Turkiye’s pursuit of strategic autonomy, though this creates friction with NATO allies. Turkiye’s military modernization underlines its aspirations for regional influence and a robust defense sector.
Egypt: Military Expansion and Insurgency Countermeasures
Egypt’s military modernization reflects its regional influence as the largest Arab country and focuses on countering insurgencies, particularly in Sinai, and securing regime stability. Egypt has diversified arms imports from Western and Russian sources, acquiring advanced aircraft, naval vessels, and air defenses to maintain strategic relevance. Despite fluctuations in military spending, its defense industry supports local production of arms and equipment. Anti-corruption measures under President Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi have political implications entwined with military priorities. Egypt’s role in regional coalitions highlights its continuing strategic ambitions.
The Role of External Actors and the Global Arms Market
The Middle East’s militarization is deeply influenced by global powers and their arms trade strategies. The United States remains the leading supplier, with substantial exports to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel. European countries such as the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and increasingly Greece, contribute significantly through direct sales and joint ventures, often blending industrial cooperation with diplomacy. Scandinavian countries, while smaller exporters, also play roles complicated by ethical and legal debates over arms sales to conflict zones like Yemen.
Western suppliers confront political and humanitarian pressures due to their customers’ involvement in regional conflicts, prompting calls for policy reviews and export restrictions. Simultaneously, Gulf states seek to diversify suppliers, incorporating countries like South Korea and forging new defense-industrial partnerships to enhance self-reliance and strategic autonomy.
Iran and Chemical Weapons Ambiguity
One especially delicate aspect of regional militarization is Iran’s chemical weapons history and doctrine. Although Iran portrays itself as a victim of chemical warfare and a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), evidence indicates covert development, deployment, and export of chemical weapons since the 1980s Iran–Iraq War. Tehran’s strategy is characterized by calibrated ambiguity, dual-use research, and the deployment of pharmaceutical-based agents (PBAs) framed as law enforcement tools but with offensive potential.
Iran’s chemical weapons program evolved through four dimensions: wartime use and lessons, postwar transfers and adaptations, institutionalized research and proxy capabilities, and ongoing noncompliance with international norms. Notably, Iran’s failure to declare munitions transferred to Libya and undeclared research activities highlight systemic opacity. Furthermore, the potential deployment of incapacitating agents by Iranian-aligned militias and proxies heightens regional threat perceptions.
Challenges and the Way Forward
The arms race dynamics in the Middle East demand more than bilateral management of tensions; they call for a comprehensive multilateral governance framework. Transparency in arms transfers, reduction of dependency on militarized solutions, and formal commitments to diplomacy, arms control, and mutual security guarantees are essential to break the cycle of insecurity. Without such steps, the region risks continuing escalation, compounding humanitarian crises and hindering political stability.
This complex puzzle involves balancing competing national interests, ethical imperatives, and international legal obligations. It also requires addressing the interconnected nature of regional proxy conflicts, global power rivalries, and the rapidly evolving landscape of military technology and defense industries. The involvement of major powers through arms supplies and military cooperation further complicates diplomacy but also provides a platform for leveraging multilateral influence.
Prof. Goran Ilikj, Saba Fatima, Francesco Salesio Schiavi, and Daniel Sunter’s study offers critical insights into the ongoing militarization of the Middle East. Their analysis highlights how arms races, regional rivalries, and global power plays coalesce in a volatile and evolving security environment. While states in the region increasingly strive for strategic autonomy through indigenous defense industries and diversified alliances, the overarching challenge remains to prevent these ambitions from spiraling into uncontrollable escalation and conflict.
Addressing the militarization challenge is imperative for fostering lasting peace and stability. Achieving this will require robust regional dialogue, international cooperation, enhanced transparency, and a renewed commitment to arms control and conflict resolution. Only through such comprehensive efforts can the Middle East hope to transform the current cycle of militarization into a foundation for secure and prosperous coexistence.