While the targeting by the US of Iranian nuclear bases may yet prove to be a turning point, it’s evident that the situation in the Middle East could still reach boiling point if it hasn't already. This would obviously be bad for the region, nations and civilians directly affected and something that has dominated headlines for weeks now, but an underdiscussed aspect is the impact it could have on the fightback against Putin’s illegal war in Europe. After a difficult birth, the ceasefire between Israel and Iran is holding for now, but here are a few reasons why any further escalation is bad news for Ukraine.

Firstly, Moscow has felt the squeeze on oil after Saudi Arabia ramped up its production but rising fuel prices, triggered by fears of supply disruption amid Iran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, would be a huge boost to the Russian leader’s war chest. Were Iran to block the world’s busiest oil shipping channel - through which 20% of the planet’s oil and gas flow - costs would soar, prompting economic chaos, further expense for Brits at the petrol pump, and - most critically - benefiting the ruble in Putin’s pocket, and funding even more deadly attacks on Ukrainian sovereignty, soldiers and civilians. Some might argue that weakening Iran means fewer arms exports to Russia, especially of drones. But, as the Washington Post reported, after Iran sold Russia the tech to create them, more are now being produced domestically anyway. Coming as the UK’s newly-unveiled national security strategy warns we must “actively prepare” for “the UK homeland coming under direct threat, potentially in a wartime scenario”, and after NATO chief Mark Rutte stressed that all of Europe is on the “eastern flank now”, restricting Russia’s resources has never been more vital - not just in defence of Ukraine but for the UK too.

Next, Ukraine has already fallen way down the geopolitical agenda, and out of the headlines; something the Iran situation only exacerbates. This matters: attention means more aid and support for Ukraine, and increased sanctions, criticism, and unpopularity for Putin. But in a signal of these shifting sands, Politico reported that Zelenskyy attended the official pre-summit NATO dinner on Tuesday evening, but was shut out of closed-door leaders’ talks on Wednesday. NATO leaders may not have pressed the matter, perhaps nervous of triggering another Trump walkout from a key gathering, following his early exit from the G7. And after saying he would end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours - and having failed to do so -  it appears the US President’s focus is increasingly elsewhere. He may have appeared to bury the hatchet with Zelenskyy in a widely-photographed face-to-face at the Vatican while attending Pope Francis’ funeral - but that doesn’t mean US military support is now guaranteed. It’s far from clear that events elsewhere won’t continue to overshadow what is no longer a ‘new’ or hot war. That makes keeping the focus on Ukraine all the more difficult, but no less important.

Relatedly, greater US entanglement in the Middle East offers Trump cover to reduce military aid to Kyiv. Advisers to the President, including vice-president JD Vance and defence secretary Pete Hegseth have been openly critical of what they deem European overreliance on the American security guarantee. Trump himself has frequently suggested he could make cutbacks to US contributions or withdraw from NATO entirely, in support of his ‘America First’ agenda. However, now (most of) the 32 member states have this week agreed to the alliance’s new 5% of GDP spending target, shifting the US’ focus - from Europe to the Middle East - is a useful pretext for something both Democrat and Republican administrations have wanted to do - pivot the US away from Europe and towards the Asia-Pacific.

Finally, the US argued it struck Iran pre-emptively, to prevent the regime developing a nuclear bomb, and in defence of its ally, Israel. It’s a similar argument to Putin’s own justification for invading Ukraine, claiming it was in self-defence. Reinforcing this attempted rationalisation simply weakens global adherence to international law - helping Russia further. Those suggesting Trump’s demonstration of US military might is a show of strength, which may result in respect from the Russian leader and bring him to the table, are taking a very rosy view of an alarming state of affairs. This risks inflaming a very dangerous situation, not just for the Middle East, but for the rules-based international order.

Ultimately, Ukraine’s brave fight to defend itself is a fight to defend all of us. Recognition of that fact has been unequivocal in Britain. In 2023, Zelenskyy gave a powerful speech to MPs in Westminster Hall, thanking the UK for galvanising support among European allies “when it seemed impossible”. While it may seem yet more difficult now, Keir Starmer’s leadership of the ‘coalition of the willing’ is another reminder that the well of support for Ukraine across Europe is by no means running dry. Through clever diplomacy, collaborative defence and sheer persistence, it’s up to the EU and UK to ensure Ukraine remains - rightly - top of the priority list.