The region’s crises have become increasingly intertwined, and no Arab country is immune from the turmoil today. It is impossible to untangle these complexities without either “major concessions" from all sides or a “major war” to settle the conflicts.
اضافة اعلان
From Iran and developments near the Strait of Hormuz, through the Gulf states and Yemen, to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, and then northward to the Levant, including Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Jordan, the crises extend further to Egypt, particularly through the potential repercussions of developments in Bab el-Mandeb.
The burdens facing the region are growing. Whenever it appears that one raging fire may be brought under control, another erupts as an extension of the first. Anyone looking at the region as a whole can easily conclude that the scenario of “major concessions” is unlikely and remains weak.
This leaves the option of a major war to settle the conflicts. Such a war would involve international powers, openly and behind the scenes, from the United States to China and Russia, as well as some European and regional countries, whether willingly or under pressure. The Israeli factor cannot be overlooked either, given its calculations within the region and its efforts to steer developments toward its own priorities.
At first glance, war does not appear to serve anyone’s interests. Yet all the region’s dynamics seem to be pushing toward it. This raises the question that is repeatedly asked: Why does Washington not put an end to these confrontations among the countries of the region and resolve the outstanding issues?
First, Washington no longer appears concerned about the region or the costs of its conflicts. Oil and other resources in the region now have alternatives, primarily from the United States and subsequently Venezuela. This means that the region’s strategic advantage is no longer what it once was. Indeed, Washington may be contributing to the region’s economic pressure in order to inflict damage whose effects extend to China, Russia, and Europe. For this reason, prolonging the current conflict may not concern Washington. What matters to it at a later stage is control over the region’s resources and oil—not the security of the region, the lives of its people, or the stability of its existing states.
Second, Washington manages the conflict among the countries of the region while giving it alternative labels, such as the Sunni-Shiite conflict, the war on terrorism, Iran and its proxies, Turkey and its allies, and others. In reality, however, it seeks to weaken the entire Arab and Muslim region in all its various forms, eventually extending this pressure to other countries that have previously been mentioned, including Egypt, Pakistan, and Turkey. The ultimate objective, according to this view, is to push the bloc of Arab and Muslim powers outside the Israeli sphere of influence. The region is treated as if it were merely a collection of pieces that can be broken against one another under sectarian, political, economic, and religious pretexts, while the overall outcome of this weakening strategy serves the Israeli project.
Third, the assumption that defeating Iran would pave the way for regional stability is based on an illusion. The stage we are currently experiencing is merely the first phase of a broader and more extensive plan to “Israelize” the region and implement schemes of division along sectarian, religious, ethnic, and communal lines. The aim would be to produce small, weak states that are dependent, in one way or another, on the center in Tel Aviv. This means that waiting for the current situation to end is merely a temporary palliative, because the region may move into a more advanced phase of redrawing and reshaping its political map.
Fourth, Washington has become an unreliable ally for many countries in the region and is unlikely to become a dependable one in the period ahead. It has left allies without adequate protection amid the war while pursuing economic pressure, suggesting that Washington could eventually abandon some of its allies altogether. Questions surrounding the guarantees of alliances with Washington are therefore numerous, particularly amid growing evidence that traditional alliances may be discarded.
Some observers are waiting for the end of the American and Israeli elections over the next two months before assessing what comes next. That is partly valid, but the more important point is to remember the reality that the region’s transformation is still in its early stages.
Those who said that we are still at the beginning, and that the escalating trajectory is taking us toward every possible scenario, were right.
