Will leaders learn from past outcomes or continue repeating them?

Sit quietly in a comfortable chair. Have your cup of coffee like a great leader, like a CEO, like a prime minister, like a footballer, like an ordinary man, like an ordinary woman, like a young graduate who has just finished university. Pause and think about what is happening and why. Before you finish your morning coffee, ask yourself what should have happened differently.
History will record that the Middle East did not collapse in a single night. It eroded through a chain of decisions — some strategic, some ideological, and some deeply political — taken far from the streets where the consequences were ultimately felt.
From the invasion of Baghdad in 2003 to the present tensions surrounding Iran, leadership choices in Washington and Tel Aviv have significantly shaped the region’s direction. Responsibility for conflict is never singular, but major powers carry greater influence — and therefore greater accountability.
The 2003 Iraq War, launched under president George W Bush, was justified by claims of weapons of mass destruction that were never found. The consequences were immense. Research from Brown University’s Costs of War Project estimates that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died either directly or indirectly as a result of the war.
The financial cost to the US is projected to exceed $2 trillion. Beyond the numbers, the war fractured institutions, deepened sectarian divisions, and destabilised the region for years.
The fall of Baghdad created a vacuum that allowed militant groups such as IS to rise. Millions were displaced. The infrastructure collapsed. The promise of quick democratisation proved unrealistic. The lesson was clear: military intervention without comprehensive post-war planning generates long-term instability rather than sustainable peace.
Years later, under President Donald Trump, the United States withdrew in 2018 from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear agreement designed to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.
The withdrawal reinstated severe sanctions, sharply reducing Iran’s oil exports and contributing to high inflation, which exceeded 30 per cent during certain periods. Supporters argued that “maximum pressure” would force policy changes. Critics warned it would escalate tensions and reduce diplomatic options. The years that followed saw attacks on oil facilities, tanker incidents, and increased military deployments in the Gulf.
The Gulf region now stands at the frontline of these strategic rivalries. Nearly 20 per cent of global oil supplies pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Any confrontation involving Iran immediately affects global energy markets. Even temporary tensions can push oil prices upward, increase shipping insurance costs, and disrupt supply chains. For Gulf Cooperation Council countries pursuing long-term economic diversification strategies, instability weakens investor confidence and complicates fiscal planning.
Defence spending across the Middle East remains among the highest in the world relative to GDP. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Saudi Arabia frequently ranks among the world’s top military spenders. While such spending reflects legitimate security concerns, it also diverts resources from education, healthcare, infrastructure, and innovation — sectors that are essential for sustainable development and economic resilience.
A balanced view requires acknowledging that regional actors, including Iran, have pursued assertive foreign policies and proxy alliances. Internal governance challenges, corruption, and political fragmentation have also contributed to instability.
Yet it is undeniable that decisions taken by powerful leaders — whether in Washington or Tel Aviv — reshape the strategic landscape for millions of people who have no direct influence over those decisions.
Sanctions without sustained diplomacy, military strikes without political settlements, and withdrawal from negotiated agreements without viable alternatives have cumulative effects. Financial markets react instantly, but families live with the consequences for decades.
Inflation rises. Job opportunities shrink. Investment slows. Young graduates search for stability in uncertain economic conditions.
The Gulf countries are not the primary architects of these global confrontations, yet their geography places them at the centre of the fallout. Their populations seek development, stability, and prosperity — not perpetual crisis.
Leadership at the highest level should be measured not only by strength but by foresight, restraint, and a commitment to long-term peace.
From Baghdad to Tehran, the pattern suggests that strategic miscalculations and confrontational policies carry costs far beyond their immediate objectives. The question is not only who is right or wrong in a particular decision.
The deeper question is whether leaders will learn from past outcomes or continue repeating them. The answer will shape not only political headlines, but also the daily lives of millions across the region.

Mohammed Anwar Al Balushi The author works at UTAS