The redesign of the Middle East
One of the consequences of the Al-Aqsa Flood operation was to shake up a geopolitical situation crystallized on a fictitious status quo, no longer corresponding to reality. The action of the Palestinian Resistance, in fact, has not simply changed the balance of power in the Occupied Territories of historic Palestine, but has shaken the balance of the entire Middle Eastern region, activating a process of transformation that affects first and foremost the Arab countries. This can also be found, counterintuitively, by observing their reactions. First of all, it must be taken into account that the old distinction between moderate and radical countries is, in fact, absolutely dated, and no longer reflects the current condition of the Arab world. If, in fact, in other historical phases this has mobilized - at least formally - for the Palestinian cause, despite the absolutely tragic dimension it has assumed in these last hundred days, this time it seems more than anything else to be characterized by a general prudence. Beyond the countries that, under the table, continue to help Israel (for example Saudi Arabia and Jordan, to circumvent the naval blockade imposed in the Red Sea by the Houthis), the action of Arab governments is essentially very lukewarm. Not only the Egyptian one, but also the Iraqi and Syrian ones (both, albeit partially, under Iranian tutelage) are so far moving with caution.
In a certain sense, the attitude of the various Arab governments in the region could be defined as conservative; basically, everyone had more or less found a condition of stability that included the Jewish state and, traditionally, it was customary to balance between the superpowers. But, starting at least from the second Gulf War, these balancing acts have become increasingly difficult, both due to the growing expansion of the American military presence, and the subsequent arrival of the Russian military presence, and above all due to the re-emergence of non-Arab regional powers. , such as Turkey and Iran, who intend to play an important role in the Middle East. In this context, for many Arab governments the presence of Israel has ended up becoming a factor of stability and rebalancing.
The move of the Palestinian Resistance, therefore, has shaken these balances, in a double sense.
First of all, by exposing Israeli weakness. An all-round weakness, political, strategic and military, which the genocidal reaction in Gaza does nothing but confirm, and its eternal dependence on the United States, from which it still cannot free itself after seventy years.
And furthermore, bringing to light a third actor in the Arab world, traditionally characterized by the dualism between emotional masses and authoritarian governments, represented by radical social-Islamic movements, strongly organized and armed, and closely connected to each other.
Obviously these factors pre-existed October 7, but the Palestinian attack acted as a catalyst, violently bringing to the fore that Axis of Resistance, absolutely transversal to the old divisions between Shiites and Sunnis, which it is today - well beyond the Iranian leadership – the key subject of the transformation.
Just think of what is happening in parallel with the conflict in Palestine. From the attacks against American bases in Syria and Iraq (today also in Jordan!), to the Houti naval blockade in Bab el-Mandeb. Without obviously forgetting some important premises, starting from the Chinese mediation which led to the resumption of relations between Tehran and Ryad, and cascading to the readmission of Syria into the Arab League and the end of the war in Yemen. All events, these, certainly conditioned by the Chinese interest in the stabilization of the area, as a function of the New Silk Road, but which obviously also find an explanation in the acknowledgment - on the part of the moderate and pro-Western Arab countries - of the role Iranian not only in the region, but as an important player in the development of the multipolar world (also thanks, obviously, to the strong relationship with Russia and China).
Even if, from an ideological point of view, these movements are comparable to a conservative current (although strongly characterized socially), it is clear that from a political point of view they take on a strong revolutionary value, both due to the radical opposition to the US imperialist presence (and to that colonial Israeli regime), and for the alternative they represent towards the Arab regimes.
But in any case it is their political-military action that determines the reshaping of the Middle East. And although the current US administration has practically no real medium-long term strategy, it is still forced to deal with this changing reality. The first strong signals are represented, on the one hand, by the start of finalized discussions with the Baghdad government to the complete and definitive withdrawal of American forces in Iraq, and the parallel decision announced to withdraw those present (illegally) in Syria; we are talking about around 6,000 soldiers in Iraq and 2,000 in Syria. On the other hand, by the evident failure of the Prosperity Guardian mission, the outcome of which was clear even before it was launched.
Even without taking into account the crazy variable represented by the current Israeli leadership, which could not only set fire to the border with Lebanon but the entire region, it is clear that a strategic landslide is underway in the Middle East, destined to profoundly change the geopolitical framework . The reduction of the US military presence, as a consequence, could become much more massive than what is currently looming. If the Sunni world which is de facto headed by Arabia reaches a position of stability, definitively detached from the relationship with Washington, what could follow could be the American withdrawal from this country, from Kuwait, from the United Arab Emirates, from Qatar, from Bahrain... and here we are talking about much more important presences - respectively 3,000, 13,000, 5,000, 13,000 and 7,000 US soldiers.
In any case, this is an inevitable trend, both because US strategic interest is destined to shift increasingly towards the Pacific, and because the costs of maintaining the enormous network of foreign military bases (64 in the area alone, from Turkey to Oman) will sooner or later impose cuts, both because the network of Middle Eastern bases is destined to act as a target for the fighting formations of the Axis of Resistance for a long time to come.
In fact, the American military presence in the region will be subject to long-lasting guerrilla warfare, until they decide to definitively withdraw. In a process destined to self-sustain and progressively accelerate, the countries traditionally allied with Washington will move further and further out of the US orbit (the move into the BRICS+ represents precisely the placement in a third position), and this will make it increasingly less welcome ( and increasingly precarious) the permanence of military garrisons. The political and military pressure from the radical groups will end up tipping the balance in favor of withdrawal.
But naturally this phase of redrawing the Middle Eastern geopolitical map will have a very broad extension - not just temporal - as it is destined to have repercussions on a larger area.
Given that the strategic objective, for Iran first and foremost, is to assume full control from the Strait of Hormuz to the Mediterranean, this means that the entire Red Sea area will be affected - and in fact, the process is already underway.
The key points of this extended strategy are represented by Sudan, where the RDF rebel forces are fighting against the central government (supported by Russians and Iranians, and politically close to the Egyptians), Eritrea and Somalia (with the pro-Israeli government of Addis Abeba which negotiates a naval base with Somaliland, arousing the ire of pro-Egyptian Somalia), Egypt (still very reluctant to act directly, but which sooner or later could break the hesitation on one of the fronts in which it is politically involved) , and Libya (with the NATO-Turkey front on one side and the Cairo-Russia front on the other).
All these crisis areas are inevitably destined to connect, in the context of this great strategic game which sees the three major adversaries of the United States - Russia, Iran and China - working towards the liberation from American control of this fundamental region, not only and not so much for oil, but because it is located at a very important junction between the center of Eurasia and Africa.
Furthermore, its position of dominance on naval trade routes (12% of global traffic passes through the Red Sea) represents a challenge to the domination of the Anglo-Saxon thalassocratic power, and is an important piece of the fundamental European energy game, on which the fate of of the old continent.
The heart of the match, however, is obviously Iran. Not only because it is his strategic vision that moves the anti-imperialist forces of the Middle East as a whole (the Axis of Resistance is a creation of General Suleimani, not surprisingly assassinated by the USA), and that he supports them with financing, training, supplies of weapons and intelligence, but because its military (and political) power is the hitherto insurmountable obstacle. Not by chance, while both Israel and part of the Republicans are constantly pushing for an attack against Tehran, and while Western propaganda constantly attributes responsibility to Iran for everything that happens in the region (from the attack of the Palestinian Resistance to the missile launches of the Houthis, from Hezbollah to the Iraqi Shiite militias), both Tel Aviv and Washington are careful not to strike Iran directly. Why they are well aware that an open and direct conflict would have enormous costs, probably enough to bring Israel to its knees and definitively compromise even the slightest US presence in the area.
After the debacle in Ukraine, the Middle East today represents the terrain on which the American hegemonic plan is put to the test, and above all the one where the crisis of the traditional instruments of American domination, the dollar and military force, is most clearly manifested. The deterrent capacity of both is in fact now waned, and even direct and coercive use proves extremely difficult, since the hegemon is no longer able to deliver a definitive blow against its challengers, and is therefore forced to play a substantially defensive game, moving on a tightrope between the growing wear and tear imposed by the opponent's strategy and the need to finish quickly.
Unlike the Ukrainian issue, the Middle Eastern issue is a much more complicated but also much more important issue. Although Europe's war effort has been cleverly and largely hidden behind the veil of proxy war, the scope of NATO's defeat is far broader and deeper than it appears; Nonetheless, it is a small thing compared to the strategic centrality of the Middle East.
It is no coincidence that the quantity and quality of aid immediately provided to Israel, in a very short time, demonstrates not simply the existing link between Washington and Tel Aviv, but precisely the assessment of a much greater strategic importance of the chessboard. On the one hand, this means that the USA will commit much more than it did in Ukraine, but at the same time it implies that the option of a gradual disengagement, which would allow us to disengage from an unsolvable crisis situation while maintaining the the appearance of not coming out defeated.
The Middle East therefore presents itself as the terrain on which the effective capacity for American strategic innovation will be measured. A (possible) Trump presidency would probably find a way out of the Ukrainian quagmire, but would hardly have equally easy ways out of the Middle Eastern one. Geopolitical redesign is now an unstoppable process.
🟥🟥🟥 follow me on 𝐓𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐦!