Afrasianet - Who guarantees that the absolute immunity granted by the new system in the "Middle East" to the Zionist entity does not become a magic wand to blackmail Arab regimes in any file, even if it is not security? 

The American-Zionist side is currently puzzled by a major dilemma: if the axis of resistance was indeed crushed, reaching Iran last month, as Trump and Netanyahu claim, this should mean that the fruits of the battle have been politically ripe, ready to be harvested in the form of a "new Middle East," and that the final obstacle to the masses' submission to the "Israeli era" has been overcome.

But it seems that the wind is not running as the ships of the American-Zionist side desire, despite Netanyahu's repeated assertion that Israeli policy has been successfully "changing the face of the Middle East" since October 2023.  Netanyahu repeated it on the eve of the so-called "Rising Assad" operation against Iran last month.

The prestigious British magazine "The Economist" came out with a main article, in its issue issued on 3/7/2025, entitled "The war between Iran and Israel has not brought about a transformation in the Middle East yet", stating that "peace deals may be out of reach, and that the Gulf countries fear that the war may be far from over."

The Western media indicates that the Zionist-American attack on Iran, instead of being welcomed by the Arab regimes that are printing and circulating in the American orbit, and hostile to Iran, condemned the "Israeli" attack on 13/6/2025, and did not welcome the American attack on 22/6/2025, or condemned it very timidly.

 Some of these regimes, especially the Gulf regimes, were upset about the nuclear deal with Iran in 2015, and happy when Trump withdrew from it in 2018, during his first presidency.  Therefore, it seems that Trump and Netanyahu expected it to publicly support the aggression against Iran, both in the media and politically. 

Perhaps it is difficult to capture the plot here by those who quickly distract from the statements condemning Arab and Islamic regimes of aggression against Iran (or Gaza, Lebanon or Syria) as being directed solely for domestic consumption, both domestically and Arably.    

This makes sense given that these regimes are actively involved in defending the Zionist entity by air and missiles, that they host military bases that house tens of thousands of American soldiers (and others), that they continue to lift the Yemeni siege on the Zionist entity, to besiege the resistance, and to stifle the simplest expressions of support internally.  

Even demanding the lifting of the siege on Gaza in the streets, and sometimes on social media, has become a "criminal" act in the custom of these regimes...  How can we believe its rhetoric when it provides tangible support to the Zionist enemy?! 

To this point, the observer is not to blame if he does not take the statements of the regimes and the statements of their officials seriously, even if he jumps from them at lightning speed to the subsequent reports and news.  

When these statements become questionable in the Western media, and when they become a prelude to political analysis that suggests that talking about a "new Middle East" is premature, we need to pause to understand what is happening.

Let's take an example from a report in the American magazine "Time Magazine", on 30/6/2025, entitled "The Arab world worries about the new order in the Middle East", which begins with the following sentence: "The war between Iran and Israel is over.  But the Arab world is grappling with its consequences."   

What is meant by "Arab world" here, as usual, is Arab regimes, which is a common mistake because countries should not be reduced to their own regimes, and second, because describing the Arab world as a "world" represents an ideological bias rather than a neutral scientific term.

Obviously, terms such as "Middle East", new or not, and "Abraham Accords" or "peace with Israel" are all penetrated, as has been pointed out elsewhere.   

Importantly, the TIME report says that Arab regimes are not comfortable with aggression against Iran.  Time itself published a major report on 22/6/2025 under the title "A New Middle East Unfolds Before Our Eyes."  This means that the editorial board revised this approach in light of the interaction with the Arab and Islamic war.

The second TIME report, on 30/6/2025, details that the reticence of Arab regimes to bomb Iran, which would have been very happy "if their regime had been replaced by a more pragmatic and less ideological one", is due to two main reasons:

1 – Israel's lawlessness in Gaza, killing and destruction, its continued bombing of Lebanon and its occupation of new territories in the Golan.

2 – The double standards applied by the West in the region, which always ends up protecting Israel from the consequences of its violations, politically and legally.

Again, it is not about the resistance in Gaza, or even what the Zionist enemy is doing there, or about Iran, in my humble opinion, but about "seeing a new regional order in which Israel secures punishment, while security standards dictate to its neighbors," as the Time report put it.

The fear of the Arab regimes is that under such a regional system, they will become a feather in the wind, weightless, and vulnerable at any moment to beating, sanctions and destabilization when the Zionist entity decides that one of them did not take into account, in a way or quickly enough, this or that consideration related to  Israel's national security, that is, if it did not fully comply with the determinants of the national security strategy of the Zionist entity.Simply put,  these regimes will turn into hostages to the West and Israel.

Who can guarantee that Egypt will not be revolving if it insists on preventing the displacement of Gazans to Sinai?  Who can guarantee that the American-Zionist side will not target Jordan if it rejects the project of displacing the people of the West Bank, while it is being Judaized in full swing?

Who can guarantee that Saudi Arabia will not be targeted, by sanctions or otherwise, if it refuses to participate in the so-called "Abraham Accords" before stopping the ongoing Zionist massacre in Gaza, taking into account the feelings of its citizens or its status in the Arab world and the Islamic world?

In short, who guarantees that the absolute immunity granted by the new system in the "Middle East" to the Zionist entity will not become a magic wand to blackmail Arab regimes in any file, even if it is not security?

We are talking about absolute Zionist tutelage here, and this is dangerous, even for Arab regimes, because it involves the possibility of undermining regimes and dismantling countries.  

This fear is important today in diagnosing the current landscape of Iran and of Arab dissidents who proceed from nationalist and nationalist calculations.   

Of course, there is no bet that Arab regimes will change their skins, because the Qatari system was originally designed to produce the matrix of policies and shabby positions that it pursues.  However, there are complications facing the extension of the American-Zionist project in the region that do not stem from its opposite, that is, from the resistance, its project and its axis, but from within it, which is supposed to carry the "new Middle East" project, and what its imposition means for the Arab regimes in terms of deterioration in the balance of their relations with the Zionist entity, and possible destabilization.  

See, for example, the Washington Post report, dated 28/6/2025, entitled "The United States Sees a New Middle East.  But its Gulf allies are confused about an unfettered Israel."      

A report in the British "Financial Times" on 22/6/2025, entitled "Gulf allies are shocked by Trump's strikes on Iran", confirms that the Gulf regimes pledged to Trump trillions of dollars, but demanded that he pursue the diplomatic option with Iran.  

It believes that the conflict could backfire, especially since it is within range of Iran's short-range missiles, and that Israeli attacks are fueling tensions in the region, hindering its engagement in the purely economic track. 

Therefore, the Gulf states are frustrated by their lack of influence over Trump on the subject of the attack on Iran, despite the fact that Gulf-US relations have moved to a supposedly higher level since Biden's departure.

The Gulf regimes believe that attempted "regime change" in Iran could, if successful, lead to regime disintegration, which would produce a storm of regional instability, just as happened in Iraq in 2003, or if failed, to Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon, which would shake the regional balance of power.  They are more likely to fail, the report conveys.

Accordingly, the Gulf states insisted on the negotiating option, and the need to return to it quickly, and presented themselves as a mediator, condemned the Israeli aggression, and pleaded with Trump that their US bases against Iran would not be used offensively.

In confirmation of what the Financial Times said, it was officially announced in the United States that 7 American B-2 strategic bombers left the Whitman Air Force Base in the US state of Missouri to bomb Iran, meaning that they did not start from the bases of the American occupation in the Arab world.  

It was said that these bombers traveled 18 hours one way to Iran, and 18 round, non-stop, meaning that they did not stop at US bases in the region, and this was accompanied by the Pentagon publishing a video showing the launch of the so-called "Midnight Hammer Operation" from Missouri.

It was remarkable that the media reports published about that operation stated that the strategic bombers had beds and bathrooms, and the apparent meaning that the crews of these bombers did not need to stop anywhere on their long way to or from Iran, meaning that the US bases in the region were not used in the aggression against Iran.  

But the missing link in that narrative is: From which bases did the American F-35 and F-22 squadrons that accompanied the seven  B-2  bombers on their aggressive mission in Iranian airspace originate?

In a contrary headline, "A Real New Middle East in the Making", in  the American magazine "Newsweek", on 3/7/2025, it may seem that what is being raised about the reservations of the Arab regimes about the new regional system in the region, which establishes the Zionist entity as absolute authority, is controversial.  

It is indeed so, and it is important that this controversy has spread to the Western media, as that title is an opinion piece written by Dr. Shogmy Friedman,  the "Israeli" rabbi and director general of a research center founded in 2002 by the Jewish Agency (which contributed to the colonization of Palestine) called the Institute for Jewish People's Policy.  

Dr. Friedman appears to have been tasked with writing a response to reports showing reservations about the "New Middle East" project.  His article promotes the official Zionist line that "a new geopolitical landscape is taking shape in the Middle East holds the promise of a lasting transformation," adding that "weakening Iran and its allies opens room for a wider circle of normalization," and that "the Abraham Accords may soon include Saudi Arabia, and perhaps even countries that have long been considered elusive, such as Syria and Lebanon."

Friedman talks about opening up prospects for toppling the regime in Iran, and that Hezbollah, deprived of Iranian patronage, will find itself forced to reassess its role within Lebanon's fractured political system, and perhaps even to face pressure to disarm and integrate politically in ways it has long resisted.

The Zionist entity believes that it has won the battle, and that the time has come to harvest politically.  

On the same line, we find a headline on Politico on 25/6/2025, "What's next for Iran and the Middle East?" It is also written by Brigadier General Yossi Kuperwasser, a retired member of the Zionist enemy army and currently affiliated with a research center called the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security.  

On the sidelines, which is not at all at all, it is very important to pay attention to the importance of research centers in shaping the media discourse, political orientation and strategies adopted in the Zionist entity (and of course in the West).

Importantly, Brigadier General Cooper Wasser concludes in his article that "the attack on Iran's nuclear and missile sites significantly improved the chances of normalizing Arab-Israeli relations, as well as promoting stability in the Middle East.  It's an achievement that should not be underestimated, but it's not the end of the road either."  

Cooper Wasser calls on what he calls "world leaders" to take advantage of this moment when Iran has been severely weakened, in his view, to impose a nuclear deal under tight control in exchange for the lifting of sanctions.  

Cooper Wasser adds, to the attention of those who believe that the military option has been exhausted, that what has happened proves in the long run the credibility of the military threat to Iran, by the United States and Israel, if it tries to rebuild its nuclear project, and that Hezbollah and Gaza are no longer a deterrent element that Israel must take into account, and that "the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria has increased the weakness of Hezbollah."

Again, this does not mean that the Zionist entity has won the battle, but it is important to know how its strategists think.

They are thinking of imposing a new regional order, and imposing conditions that mean only one of two things: either surrender or renewed aggression, and therefore we must be ready for the next round, because the real obstacle to imposing the Zionist-American regional order is the axis of resistance.   

Normalization with Saudi Arabia, Syria and Lebanon is strongly on the table, as we see in a report titled "Are the Fallout from the Iranian Conflict Pushing Israel and Saudi Arabia to Normalize?" , on 2/7/2025, at the Breaking Defense  website, which specializes in military affairs, which is based in New York.

The website concludes that the issue of Gaza has become the most important obstacle to the expansion  of the Abraham Accords, and that Saudi Arabia may form a larger complex because it tends to have a more permanent solution than a "ceasefire" alone, preserving its standing in the Sunni world, as the report notes, while regimes in Syria and Lebanon tend to normalize on lighter terms, and that a ceasefire in Gaza may suffice for them (this is what a temporary ceasefire in Gaza means in the regional context).

The Saudi leadership is well aware that the Turkish regime is waiting for it to fall, but what the new regime in Syria must realize is that its involvement in normalization without Saudi or Turkish cover, and outside the regional context of Arab regimes, means political suicide, and repeating the experience of May 17, 1983 in Lebanon, Syria, an experience from which some in Lebanon seem to have learned nothing.

Solutions are neither difficult nor impossible, the United States of America is not destined for the Arabs and they can make their choice to head east towards Russia and China, and this is something that can be achieved if the wills are available.