Since the establishment of the state of Israel, the politics of the Middle East has been looked through the prism of religion. Sykes-Picot treaty, 1916, was an agreement between France and Britain in the initial years of WW-I. It divided the Middle East between the presumed victors of the Great War for Civilisation (ironic, indeed). Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon were carved out of the former Ottoman Empire and divided between the victors after the war. Since the end of the WW-1, the global political chessboard got a new regional actor after Europe and America i.e. the Middle East. When the British government endorsed the “establishment of a Jewish homeland in the Middle East” in the Balfour Declaration, on November 2, 1917, perhaps it did not know that this single act would soon become the pretext of widespread tension and catastrophe for the incumbent inhabitants of Palestine. The overthrow of Hashemite monarchy and its replacement by the House of Saud in 1932, at the behest of American backing, ushered in a new era of Arab coordination with a foreign entity (an act alien to Middle Eastern politics until then). The US has become a pivotal decision-maker in the Middle East’s affairs since then. Throughout these eventful years of the 20th century, one thing remained common: the people of the Middle East were not adhered to. Victors of WW-I just changed the rulers, but not the condition of the people. Nobody asked what will happen to the people who were already established in the Promised Land? Will the inhabitants and importing Israelis coexist? What will happen to the religious minorities of Saudi Arabia? These are humanitarian questions, but international politics is not about masses, it is about interests, and sometimes both do not coincide. Since the establishment of the state of Israel, the politics of the Middle East has been looked through the prism of religion. The Muslim states, despite their sectarian differences, could not bring themselves to accept the hegemony and claim of Israel. To reverse this decision, several countries resorted to armed confrontations at various times. But every confrontation has become a flashpoint. For example, the Six Days War of 1967 and the consequent capturing of Golan Heights, West Bank and the Sinai Peninsula by Israel. But all of this is part of history, as the very fabric of Middle Eastern politics is changing. Since the Arab Spring and the toppling of regimes that followed, there have been speculations, but the reality is dauntingly astonishing. The Egyptian premier Abdel Fateh al Sisi has ensured his relevance for the next decade through a doubtful referendum. Saudi Crown Prince, Muhammad bin Salman, US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are emerging as the latest trio in the international arena. Being a constant stakeholder in the region, the US has taken some drastically precarious steps in recent months, without considering the consequences and sensitivity of the situation in the Middle East. For example, the closing down of the US embassy for Palestine, cutting down of the UN Works and Relief Agency for Palestinian refugees’ budget and making it conditional with Palestinian compliance and declaring Jerusalem, a heavily contested and sensitive topic for both sides, as the capital of Israel. Such rash decisions bear irreversible results. For example, shutting down of diplomatic discourse only creates more reason for resorting of issues through non-peaceful means. MBS has been speeding up the pace of Saudi involvement in the region. The corruption cleansing wave and rapid modernisation schemes for Saudi Arabia distinguished him from his predecessors. Afterwards, his amicable behaviour with Israel casts a shadow over the symbolic unity of the Muslim world over the just cause for Palestinian people. Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey are also eyeing the Jerusalem problem with keen interest as they are all concerned for the future of the second holiest place of Muslims around the globe. As legitimacy from masses stems partially from religious security of the people, these countries are contesting to take the lead. The US has been closing the breathing space for a peaceful conflict resolution for Iran. It abandoned the much prized and hard-earned Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action deal. Then, it imposed sanctions on Iranian oil export in the international market and has subjected Iran to various international sanctions. But Iran can react by shutting off the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 per cent of the world oil is exported. Thus, triggering a global oil crisis. Lastly, the defeat of ISIS, although being celebrated by the West as a milestone, cannot be a decisive victory unless peace is restored to Syria and external hands stop meddling in its affairs. The Kurdish problem persists and neither Syria nor Iraq or Turkey seem to concede to their demands. The Iranian-Saudi proxy war in Yemen has jolted the region to its cores but neither side realises the human cost of this misadventure. While the global powers can ensure peace in the region and put a stop to all these disasters, the US, Russia and European leading countries are the largest exporters of arms to these conflicts. Surprisingly selling arms to both sides and then pitching for the peaceful resolution as well. But the overall saga of the Middle East has not completely unfolded yet. Meanwhile, the US-Iran confrontation is becoming an imminent reality. The writer is a research associate at the Centre for Pakistan and Gulf Studies