Dr. Hamad Kasasbeh

The crises of the Middle East are no longer understood as purely local issues confined to individual states. They have become part of broader transformations in the global economic and political system. The region is now a key arena where the interests of major powers intersect, at a time when the international order is being reshaped under pressure from competition between the United States, China, and Russia, alongside growing global economic uncertainty. In this context, instability in the Middle East is no longer a regional matter alone, but a factor with direct consequences for the global economy.

The region holds undeniable economic importance. It contains a large share of global energy reserves and hosts critical trade corridors linking Asia and Europe, directly influencing oil prices and global inflation. Estimates by the International Energy Agency indicate that any prolonged disruption to Middle Eastern energy supplies quickly feeds into global energy prices, as repeatedly observed over the past decade. Undermining stability in this region therefore threatens not only local economies, but global market stability as well.

Yet this importance has not translated into Arab economic influence. Instead, weak regional coordination has made the Middle East more vulnerable to external intervention, turning it into a geopolitical arena rather than an economic partner. This is reflected in repeated military deployments, constant threats of escalation, and the preference for pressure tools over long-term development strategies.

Economically, the cost of instability is increasingly clear. World Bank estimates show that conflict-affected countries lose between 2 and 3 percentage points of potential annual growth. Borrowing costs rise, long-term investment declines, and public spending shifts toward security at the expense of education, infrastructure, and productive sectors. These losses are measured not only by what is destroyed, but also by the opportunities that never materialize.

At the center of this debate lies the question of the United States. Do current economic conditions allow Washington to benefit from ongoing instability? The US economy faces serious constraints, most notably public debt exceeding USD 38 trillion in 2026, alongside persistent inflationary pressures and the high fiscal cost of overseas military engagement. At the same time, strategic competition with China and tensions with European allies raise doubts about America’s ability to convert regional instability into sustainable economic gains.

Europe, by contrast, is among the most directly affected by Middle Eastern instability. Higher energy prices feed directly into inflation and weaker growth, while threats to trade routes raise the cost of European commerce and industry. The recent energy crisis exposed how sensitive European economies are to disruptions in the region, making Middle Eastern stability a core European economic interest.

China and Russia are also unlikely to benefit from prolonged instability. China depends on regional stability to secure energy flows and sustain the Belt and Road Initiative. More than 40% of China’s energy imports pass through the Middle East, meaning that extended disruption represents a strategic vulnerability rather than a gain. Russia, meanwhile, requires stable markets for energy and grain exports, making sustained regional turmoil economically costly.

Amid these dynamics, the global order is moving toward greater multipolarity, but also higher fragility. Military deployments and crisis management are proving insufficient to secure lasting economic influence. Instead, instability increasingly generates higher global costs, while stability has become a scarce but essential global public good.

In conclusion, no new international order can be balanced or sustainable without a stable Middle East. The region is not a peripheral space in the global economy, but one of its central pillars. Building a fair and effective global system requires investment in stability, development, and economic partnerships, not perpetual crisis management. The key question is not who gains temporarily from instability, but who has the vision and responsibility to transform the Middle East from a zone of conflict into a foundation of global economic stability.