Power gap, Iran's strategy and Muslim states' hedging left Palestine unliberated, analysis finds

Analysis: power gap, Iran's survival strategy and hedging left Palestine without a liberator

What it argues

One summary of the conversation and its 5 follow-up questions.

The analysis finds the Axis lost to a US-backed Israeli power gap and fought on Iran's terms. Muslim states hedged, and few wrote measures against the occupation into their own law.

1. Decisive power gap

   US-Israeli strikes killed Iran's Supreme Leader on 28 February 2026. Al Jazeera reported in August 2026 that Israel occupies about a fifth of Lebanon. Israel kept striking Gaza and Lebanon despite the June 2026 US-Iran memorandum providing for a ceasefire on all fronts. Dollar sanctions cut off Axis revenue, the analysis finds. The analysis finds that Israel's military and financial advantage, not a lack of effort, defeated the Axis.

2. Axis fought on Iran's terms

   The analysis says the Axis fronts in 2026 opened and closed with Iran's own war and ceasefires. The Axis did not run a campaign to free Palestine, the analysis argues. The analysis argues that the Axis defended Iran's own position rather than fighting to liberate Palestine.

3. Hedging by Turkey, Saudi, Pakistan

   Atlantic Council analysts link their Mecca defence pact to Iran, the Houthis and Israel. A Turkish official said it targets no specific actor. The analysis says reliance on US arms, IMF bailouts and Chinese credit rewards hedging. Pakistan mediated the US-Iran memorandum. Pakistan says it will act under the pact "when time comes". In September 2026 the pact still needed domestic approval before its defence duties became binding. The analysis argues that none of the three joined the fight. All chose mediation and their own security.

4. Dollar system as leverage

   US sanctions reach states through correspondent banks and ownership links. The analysis says no other payment system is as deep as the dollar. Serbia's only refiner was sanctioned because of its Russian ownership. A February 2025 US order cut aid to South Africa, citing its ICJ case. The analysis lists partial shields: trade outside the dollar, BRICS and SCO markets, and gold reserves. The analysis argues that dollar dependence makes acting first costly, and that no full shield exists.

5. Unused legal levers

   OIC resolutions do not bind its 57 members. Measures apply only where a state writes them into its own law. The six Bogotá measures cover arms, fuel, ports, contracts and universal jurisdiction. The Hague Group lists 13 states that adopted them. Most of the 13 are not Muslim states. Of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, only Türkiye endorsed them, on 29 July 2025. The analysis argues that the legal levers need no Security Council vote, but almost no OIC state uses them.

6. Structure behind the inaction

   No binding instrument makes any OIC state act first. Only six OIC states took up the Bogotá pledges. Many Arab and Muslim states backed the US-drafted Resolution 2803 track, which the analysis calls a cheaper way to appear engaged. The analysis also points to the Saudi-UAE rivalry, Egypt's creditors and the silencing of domestic pressure. The analysis argues that political will is missing because acting first is costly and nothing compels any state to move.

Read the original conversation →Converse →