I asked artificial intelligence a question whose answer I already knew whether it believed that the confrontation between Iran and the United States actually ends up serving Washington in terms of outcome.
اضافة اعلان
I want to relay the AI's answer here and then discuss it. It said, verbatim: "The relations and interactions between Iran and the United States of America in the Middle East are among the most complex political files, and there are multiple and contradictory viewpoints and strategic analyses. There are several approaches in this framework, which must be examined and analyzed in a deep and detailed manner.
The first approach is "mutual service and indirect convergence." Proponents of this view see a kind of "utilitarian mutual service," or indirect exchange of interests, between the two sides. According to this view, Iranian interventions through its military arms help weaken stable Arab states and fragment their social fabric. This gives the United States and Western powers a continuing pretext for military intervention and arms sales, and keeps the region under the weight of needing outside protection. Any reconciliation between the Americans and Iranians might lead to a division of the region and its influence under an agreement.
The second approach is "real conflict and confrontation." This view holds that the relationship between Washington and Tehran is one of genuine, fundamental struggle for influence, not coordination. According to this perspective, Iran seeks to build an "axis of resistance" to expand and achieve regional hegemony and push American forces out of the region, while America tries to curb this influence and protect its allies and strategic interests. This places the two sides in constant collision, the price of which is paid by the region's peoples and states, especially if a major war breaks out that could burn the entire Arab region and reshape its future in Washington's favor.
The third approach is "competition of projects at the Arabs' expense." This analysis considers that the Arab East is a victim of competing regional and international projects: the American, the Iranian, and the Israeli. Despite the differing ideologies and goals of these projects, they all meet at one point: the geography of Arab states, their resources, wealth, and peoples are the main arena for settling scores and extending influence, which ultimately leads to destabilizing the Arab region."
These are three answers from the AI, but this is an opportunity to draw conclusions from all the approaches, because the bottom line is the same. Across all three approaches, the Arab region will pay the price in terms of its identity, political geography, wealth, and future. This is the common element among them, especially as we see today that there is no weighty Arab bloc with a defined position on what is happening. We see only political statements to stake out a stance. Worse still, the Arab countries are divided in their approaches among more than one axis and do not converge on any particular approach at all, since most states now face individual security crises in their neighborhood or near their borders.
This means, without pessimism, that the future of the Arab world will be dark. Coming generations will suffer from economic conditions, the cost of state collapse, weak education, and the effects of confrontations and wars on it. It would also mean that, at some point, the Arab region will drop off the international agenda for the region, which in practice is confined to Islam and the desire to curb it as an identity and as a driving, unifying cultural reference, and to fragment the popular base that supports it, and to oil, which now has alternatives in other countries and will not remain forever the driver of states' appetites toward this region.
Unless the Arab world wakes up, reshapes its identity, and strengthens its centrality, it will be plundered amid all these approaches that the AI described to us. The AI almost seems to cry out that we will soon be mere accounting differences, so long as the Arab national order is fragmented, subordinate to other centers, and unaware of the cost of these approaches to it, and some within it are aware but have chosen to side with one party or another.
