This article explores the evolving dynamics of triangular diplomacy and political alliances in the Middle East, using the paradigm of "Primakov triangles" as a framework for understanding how mid-level powers and political actors navigate complex geopolitical landscapes as well as internal political alliances. The model gained its name from Yevgeny Primakov's strategic vision for Russia to form a triangular alliance with China and India but has longer historical legacies going back to the negotiations that led to the formation of nation-states in Europe in the middle of the 19th century.  In recent years, the concept of triangular diplomacy has since been adapted by various nations to balance conflicting interests without falling into binary alliances. The article argues that while these triangular arrangements offer mid-level powers a way to maximize their influence and manage international relations, they also present significant challenges, particularly for smaller states and conflict zones.

In regions like the Middle East and Africa, where conflicts are deeply entrenched, the reliance on triangular diplomacy by larger powers often lead to the freezing of conflicts rather than their resolution. The article critically examines how this approach allowed regional and international actors to mitigate immediate risks while perpetuating instability in smaller, conflict-ridden states. Furthermore, the analysis highlights the limitations of triangular diplomacy, where the cost of ending wars and achieving peace is overshadowed by the marginal benefits of maintaining the status quo.

The article also explores how internal dynamics within states, such as the Arab Spring uprisings, have been influenced by triangular power plays, with revolutionary movements often co-opted into broader geopolitical strategies. It concludes by arguing that while triangular political alliances provide a useful tool for managing international relations, its application in conflict zones requires careful consideration to bring back some level of stability. Ultimately, the article calls for a more nuanced approaches to triangular diplomacy, one that prioritizes peace and building critical political alliances to create gradual motors towards democratization over short-term and naïve political maneuvring.