The rapidly changing international situation, accompanied by the development of processes that are difficult to predict against the background of deepening geopolitical and geo-economic contradictions, as well as persistent centers of regional instability, forms serious challenges for the entire international community.

The escalation of the Iran-Israel conflict on June 13 of this year has become another key factor in the growth of international tension. This conflict, which previously had a predominantly latent and asymmetric character, has for the first time acquired signs of open interstate confrontation after the exchange of military strikes with the risk of escalating into a large-scale war. This caused concern not only among the direct participants in the conflict and their allies, but also among the majority of states in the international community.

The reasons for this effect are systemic and multilayered, which are global in nature, affecting primarily the problems of energy security. The conflict has increased the risks of blocking the strategically important Strait of Hormuz, which is the gateway to the Persian Gulf, causing fears of blocking international trade and transit corridors and ports of the strait. It is through the Strait of Hormuz that about 20-25% of the world's oil exports and more than 30% of liquefied natural gas passes. Any threats to stability in this region immediately affect world oil and gas prices, and thus affect the interests of countries that are not directly involved in the conflict. Already now some experts predict a rise in prices in the range from$ 100 to $250 per barrel.

The conflict has also affected the interests of financial and investment markets.  Investors, as a rule, negatively perceive signals of instability in such a sensitive region. Increased uncertainty intensifies capital outflows and can affect:

 - the level of risky investments in the energy and transportation sector;

 - the attractiveness of the Middle East and neighboring regions as destinations for foreign direct investment;

 - the stability of currencies of developing economies.

Thus, in the context of global interconnectedness, even regional conflicts can have a disproportionate impact on the world economy. At the same time, however, it should be noted that the international community has a number of tools for preventive response, including diplomatic mediation, OPEC+ coordination, insurance mechanisms, and the flexibility of logistics operators. Therefore, long-term stability will depend not only on the development of the conflict itself, but also on the ability of key international players to act in concert to promote de-escalation and maintain stability in critical parts of the global economy.

The escalation of the Iran-Israel conflict has also become a factor that has intensified the geopolitical rivalry between the world's leading powers in the Middle East. This rivalry between global centers of power is transforming the region into an arena of overlapping interests, increasing its fragmentation and strategic uncertainty. For the countries of Central Asia, historically located at the crossroads of key geopolitical and transit axes between the Middle East, Europe, South and Southeast Asia, such dynamics represent a source of growing foreign policy and foreign economic risks. It is no coincidence that in this regard, with the outbreak of the conflict, the leader of Uzbekistan, Sh. M. Mirziyoyev, expressed concern, stating that "the world has once again seen the outbreak of a hotbed of conflict, which will affect not only the Middle East, but also our region". 

As is well known, the Central Asian states have for a number of years demonstrated increasing activity in the development of international transportation and logistics corridors, including the North-South, China-Central Asia-Europe, TRACECA, and trans-Afghan route initiatives. These projects are seen as strategically important for diversifying foreign economic relations and integrating the region into global supply chains. However, the aggravation of the conflict in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea zone creates additional risks for the stability and predictability of the functioning of these routes. Increased military and political tensions may lead to higher insurance costs, longer delivery times and higher transaction costs, which generally reduces the region's attractiveness for international freight transportation and infrastructure investment.

Assessing the current situation, we can say that the Iran-Israel conflict has moved from a regional episode to the category of factors capable of influencing the international security architecture as a whole. Its development has affected critical issues such as energy, global trade and the stability of transportation corridors. For Central Asia, the consequences are manifested not so much in a direct military sense, but rather in an increase in external risks and a narrowing of the space for creating conditions for continuing to realize the course of sustainable development. Under these conditions, strengthening regional and global cooperation in a variety of areas is becoming a priority, which, as if anticipating today's events, the head of our state noted at the first Samarkand International Climate Forum in April of this year.

Turning to the problem of possible settlement of the conflict, it should be noted that the conflict between Iran, on the one hand, and Israel and the United States, on the other, is one of the most complex and multilayered challenges of modern international politics. It includes not only political-military contradictions, but also ideological, historical, religious and regional aspects, which makes it difficult to achieve a sustainable and rapid settlement. It should also be noted that over the past decades, the interaction between these parties has taken place in the logic of containment, periodic crises and attempts at diplomatic rapprochement. A striking example was the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed in 2015, which demonstrated that even the most sensitive issues can be the subject of constructive dialog if there is political will. However, the subsequent moves by the parties involved brought the situation back to the zone of high tension.

In terms of the current conflict dynamics, today we are witnessing an increased level of fragmentation of regional security, especially against the backdrop of increased activity of non-state actors involved in the conflicts in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. This situation underlines the need for a systemic approach, where, along with direct participants in the conflict, influential mediators interested in normalizing the situation in the region and stabilizing energy markets could play an important role.

At the moment, it would be premature to talk about a quick and complete solution to the conflict. However, point agreements, de-escalation mechanisms and confidence-building measures are quite possible, especially if diplomatic efforts are intensified and there is mutual interest in de-escalation. Such steps could be the basis for launching a more sustainable dialog in the near term.

Given the complexity of the factors and the continuing mistrust of the parties involved in the conflict, its eventual resolution in the foreseeable future will depend on the ability of those parties to find compromise approaches. In this regard, maintaining open channels of communication, the gradual restoration of trust and the desire of all parties to consider not only their own interests but also regional and global stability will be of paramount importance. History shows that even the tensest conflicts can evolve towards agreements - provided there is political will, strategic stamina and the participation of credible mediators.

In this regard, President Donald Trump's recent announcement of a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, regardless of the political context, is certainly of interest as an informational and diplomatic signal, especially given its impact on both domestic American audiences and the international agenda. Against the backdrop of continuing high tensions in the region, any statement suggesting the possibility of a ceasefire or a reduction in military intensity can be perceived as a positive informational impulse, but its realism and durability depend not so much on rhetoric as on the concerted actions of the official parties, the availability of diplomatic channels and mechanisms for monitoring the implementation of agreements.

While such statements are no guarantee of de-escalation, they can be used as a diplomatic window of opportunity, especially if they are followed by a series of practical steps by official representatives of the parties concerned. It is important that any future initiatives can be based on an institutional framework, mutual commitments and agreed formats for de-escalation, with the possible involvement of international mediators and the consent of the opposing sides.

In this connection, the foreign policy course of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan, clearly expressed in the official position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acquires special significance. At the center of this position is a principled rejection of the military way of conflict resolution, commitment to peaceful dialogue and settlement in accordance with the norms of international law, as well as the emphasis on political and diplomatic methods as a key tool to ensure sustainable development, regional and global stability.

A.Khaydarov

Doctor of Political Science, Professor,

Director of the Diplomatic Academy,

UWED of the Republic of Uzbekistan