Afrasianet: It is useful to mention here that since the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United States and Israel have been inciting against it, intimidating and saying that it is an enemy of the Arabs and that it poses a direct threat to them, especially to the Gulf countries.
However, the Iranian-Saudi reconciliation came to negate this American-Israeli incitement, as well as the relations that developed with many Gulf countries such as Oman and Qatar, and elsewhere contributed to erasing the image that the United States and Israel wanted to consolidate.
More than four decades ago, specifically after the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini and the end of the Shah's rule, the contours of a new policy began to take shape. Khomeini quickly declared, on more than one occasion, that Israel was a cancerous tumor in the heart of the Islamic world and that it must be eradicated. The first step in changing policies was to turn the Israeli embassy in Tehran into an embassy for Palestine and hand it over to the late Yasser Arafat.
This indicates, far from any analysis of the Islamic Republic's intentions, that Palestine has a strong presence in Iranian politics. Since the late 1970s, the Islamic Republic has begun to build ties with Palestinian liberation movements, including Yasser Arafat's Fatah. The streets of Tehran witnessed the largest pro-Palestinian demonstrations during Arafat's visit.
The network of relations between the Islamic Republic and the Palestinian liberation movements gradually developed into a distinctive character, especially with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. It was no secret that the Islamic Republic became the main supporter of the resistance movements in Palestine, especially these two movements.
From this perspective, it can be understood that the relationship between the Iranian Republic and Palestine, during the era of Khomeini and after Khamenei, is radically different from its relationship with Palestine during the Shah's era, when Iran was one of the most prominent backyards for the Israeli Mossad and the agents of the United States in the Middle East.
This approach helps us to understand what is happening today and perhaps what will happen in the future between the Islamic Republic and the State of Israel, as the latter is the occupying power of Palestine, which is considered an occupied territory that must be liberated, according to the established Iranian doctrine, especially with the Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guards of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Why the war on Iran now?
The idea of attacking the Islamic Republic is not new. Netanyahu did not suddenly wake up to a dream after which he decided to attack Iran. He has been putting forward this idea for at least fifteen years, warning in every forum that "Iran is on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon," which in the Israeli mind is considered the greatest threat to the State of Israel.
However, Israel's reluctance to carry out this attack stemmed from concern about the reaction of the Islamic Republic's allies in the region, as it was possible, in the event of a war, that many fronts would be opened along the so-called "axis of resistance." Waiting, waiting for the most opportune opportunity to attack Iran, was the master of Israel's position without abandoning its ambitions for regional expansion.
Israel, the Flood and the Element of Surprise!
It was no secret that the Al-Qassam Brigades repeatedly announced that it had intelligence information, the content of which was acknowledged by some military and security leaders in Israel, indicating that the occupation was planning to launch a broad and sudden attack on the resistance movements, in an attempt to weaken Iranian influence, starting from Gaza, by targeting Hamas and Islamic Jihad movements, and eliminating their leaders.
However, the resistance, especially Hamas, pre-empted the attack with a surprise attack called the "Flood," the repercussions of which continue to this day. As the Israeli shock from this blow mounted, the Zionist project began to unfold publicly, with Netanyahu repeatedly declaring that he was proceeding to "change the Middle East" toward a "new Middle East." He revealed his features in his speech to the United Nations in September 2023, weeks before the "Flood," speaking of the "new Greater Israel."
The United States has been behind this trend, backed by some active allies in the region.
The New Middle East!
The idea of a "new Middle East" is not new. Shimon Peres, the former prime minister of the occupying power, spoke about it in his book of the same name. Peres believed that achieving peace and economic prosperity with neighboring countries, and in the region in general, was the way to achieve this vision.
However, this idea faltered for several reasons, the most important of which was the existence of resistance movements, especially in Palestine, which adopted the approach of "unity of the squares" as a strategy in its struggle against the occupation. With the passage of more than a century since the Sykes-Picot agreement and the erosion of the region's fragmentation systems, a strong Israeli desire to impose a "new Middle East" that would give it another century of control emerged.
This has been achieved in a kind of division of roles: America is focusing on the European and Russian fronts, watching the rise of China, while Israel is tasked with confronting resistance movements in the region.
But the question is: will the new Middle East project succeed?
For this idea to succeed, four basic determinants must be achieved:
There is a real desire on the part of America and Israel. The existence of effective systems to support and realize the idea. Eliminating resistance movements in the region, along with their supporters. Lack of Arab and Islamic popular awareness, in addition to supporting free people around the world.
When reflecting on these determinants, it becomes clear that only the first of them has been achieved, while the rest, especially the elimination of the resistance, are unlikely. The resistance, despite all that it has been subjected to over the past two years, is still alive and is fighting a war of attrition that pains the occupation. Is it reasonable that the occupation will not be able to eliminate a small resistance in Gaza, and then succeed in eliminating a country the size of Iran?
Will Iran end now?
US President Donald Trump has never been far from the project of a "new Middle East" in one way or another, as his policies have contributed to shaping the climate and conditions of the region. He chose to withdraw from the nuclear deal in his first term and was the most prominent supporter of Israel, moving his country's embassy to Jerusalem and recognizing the Golan as part of Israel.
At the same time, however, in recent months, he has raised the slogan of diplomacy and dialogue with the Islamic Republic and set a two-month time limit to reach an agreement on American size and standards.
Hidden from the picture, coordination between Washington and Tel Aviv remained in place on the Iran negotiations, which he believed would be an easy goal that could be completed in a few days. But this perception overlooks the fact that Iran, which has been raising the slogan of destroying Israel for more than four decades, cannot be asleep all these decades to become an "easy morsel."
With the expiration of Trump's deadline, Israel dealt a surprise and costly blow to Iran, revealing a serious security breach within the Islamic Republic. However, it quickly absorbed the blow and began to respond, and Israel found itself in a dilemma, asking for American intervention.
America has entered the war!
War broke out, and multiple rounds of fighting began between Israel and the Islamic Republic. Israel could not carry out an effective strike on Iran's nuclear facilities without the direct support of the United States, which was not absent from the beginning, but was politically, media, security, and logistically involved.
Direct military intervention was achieved, which was preceded by the "two-week grace period" trick. The surprise strike came on the Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan reactors, which were reported to have varied on the extent of the actual damage.
Trump responded by calling for peace and returning to the negotiating table, in the manner of "peace by force." Iran responded with limited bombing of the al-Udeid base in Qatar, which had already been evacuated.
But Iran did not expand the scope of its response against America, and instead focused on continuing to bomb Israel, without hinting at the intention of stopping the war. Here, I imagine that there are a number of reasons why the Iranians are not inclined to expand the space for responding to American bases in the region, and these reasons are:
Iran's unwillingness to engage in a direct confrontation with the United States, because it is aware of the magnitude of the possible response. The unwillingness of Iran's friendly forces to engage in a confrontation with the United States, which weakened its position. The decline in the ability of some of Iran's allies, on whom it was counting. A possible security breach inside Iran prevented a decision to open confrontation.
Afterwards , Qatar announced mediation at the request of the United States, to pressure Iran to cease fire with Israel.
I think Israel needs a ceasefire more than Iran, for reasons such as:
Israel's inability to afford the losses of repeated Iranian strikes. Its unwillingness to fight a long war, while Iran says it is ready for it.
The point remains after the ceasefire, will the Iranians go to negotiations or not?
It is likely that Iran will agree to go to negotiations, but not with the logic of surrender as Trump wanted, but as a party that feels victorious because of its steadfastness in the face of both Israel and America, and the failure of the attempt to topple the regime through internal cells trained for this purpose.
Iran will negotiate, but it will keep a bullet ready in its gun, in anticipation of any escalation by the occupying power.
This is one of the rounds of conflict between the occupying power and the Islamic Republic, and it is not the end of the war. Rather, it will be followed by many rounds in the future, and I do not think that the distances between them will be long. These rounds aim to preoccupy the enemy and stand in the face of the idea of a new Middle East.
The triangle of power in the region has three sides, namely Israel, Turkey, and Iran, and the United States draws the borders of each of them, and controls the balance between them, thus ensuring control over the region, in a way that imposes its hegemony, achieves its interests, and ensures that it has the status of a single power that is not crowded by a rival power over the region.
The three powers agree that none of them was the greatest threat or the first danger to the existence and security of the others, and Israel never represented an existential threat to any of the Turkey or Iran, as well as neither Turkey nor Iran represented an existential threat against Israel, so it is not possible for two of them to ally against the third, it is difficult for Turkey and Iran to ally against Israel, and it is also difficult for Israel to ally with Iran or Turkey against one of them, because geographically, the three countries do not have direct friction between them, and although Turkey and Iran have a common geographical border, they are of a rugged mountainous nature, which isolates and separates them more than they connect and connect.
Historically, the competition between Turkey and Iran for the leadership of the region continues from the beginning of the sixteenth century until today and tomorrow, and both with Ethiopia were in early Zionist planning as a strong neighbor to the Arabs that Zionism could court to besiege the Arabs, and Zionism succeeded in distinguished relations with Turkey that continue without interruption since the establishment of Israel until now, and it succeeded in something like this with Iran until the establishment of the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Israel existed and Iran – before and after the revolution – saw the first danger It was Iraq, until it fell under the American invasion in 2003, so the danger was removed and Iran began to extend its authority over West Asia to the Eastern Mediterranean without restrictions, and Israel was also present, and Turkey considered the first danger to it was Iraq, then Syria, and behind them the Soviet Union until it fell, so Turkey began to breathe and then Iraq fell, so Turkey began to turn its face with strength to the Middle EastThen Syria fell, and Turkey became a real great power in the region, head to head with Israel and Iran, while the Arabs all fell, one power after another, from Nasserist Egypt, then Saddam Iraq, and then Assad Syria, so the Arabs left the leadership of the region, and an important country in the weight of Saudi Arabia and with it the small Gulf states, had to maintain its existence with a balanced combination of relations with America, Israel, Iran, and Turkey, otherwise it became in the wind, and you can remember that when you decided Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain Blockade of Qatar, Turkish forces moved and were stationed at a military base on Qatari soil in 2017, this is an important precedent, it reveals to you several facts: the expansion of Turkish influence in the Gulf, then this expansion with American consent, and it is similar to the Turkish expansion in Syria, and it is also with American consent, and both of them - in Qatar and then Syria - coincided with the rule of the Republicans headed by Trump, and then this Turkish military presence in Qatar, was not to face an Iranian or Iraqi threat but to face a Gulf danger, this experience It was a small but successful experiment to allow American influence to expand in the Middle East as an element of checks and balances, working in coordination with the imperial center in Washington without the need for America to be directly involved with its troops and soldiers.
Israel is concerned about the American policy towards Turkey and Iran, America's interests are too broad to be linked to Israel's interests only, America is an empire whose foreign policy in the Middle East is difficult to be entirely dictated by Israel, certainly Israel's interest is a priority for all American administrations, but before, with and after it there are many priorities, meaning the empire, and if Israel does not like it, here it is necessary to clarify several important historical points to clarify the picture of the current situation and its future possibilities.
1 – The first point: America's relationship with Israel has never been as we see today, as we are prepared to assume that Israel dictates to America – by force majeure – what it says and does in the Middle East, and America only has to accept with submission and submission, this was not the case, when Israel was founded, America was content to recognize it, with an important influence of Jewish lobbyists, as well as Protestant Christian Zionist lobbyists, but America's strategic interests remained the dominant element in planning and executing American policies in the Middle East, at that time, America's interest was to counter Soviet influence, and that is why Israel was not the important one, the two most important countries were Greece and Turkey, and America was seeking to win over the Arabs, including Egypt, of course, and America sought to provide a high-value token of love to Egypt and the Arabs, when it alone confronted and deterred the Israeli-British-French tripartite aggression on Egypt, and it is no exaggeration to say that America represented itself completely on behalf of Egypt The Arabs fought the triple aggression on behalf of Egypt and the Arabs, although the Arabs chose to side with the Soviets, Egypt did so in 1955, then Iraq after the fall of the Hashemite monarchy in the 1958 coup, and then Syria after the Baath coup in 1963. America wanted the Arabs, but the Arabs wanted the Soviets, the Arabs considered America a new colonialism worse than European colonialism, while they saw the Soviets as a liberating force, so America turned its back on the Arabs and turned its face towards Israel.
In the first and most dangerous twenty years of Israel's life, America was not its first sponsor, America was setting balanced distances in its relations with the Arabs and Israel, the first sponsor of Israel was Britain, then it was replaced by France until the end of the de Gaulle era when it decided to withdraw from Algeria, and establish balanced relations with the Arabs and Israel, then after France, America replaced the first sponsor of Israel, and this coincided with the sweeping Israeli victory against all Arabs and the end of the era of Nasserist leadership to begin The era of Saudi influence, and what was known as the Islamic Awakening.
2 – The second point: The American moral position was and still is confused and destabilizes the faith, conscience and conscience between two things: Israel's right to survive, and then Israel's right to aggression, and the confusion increases with the fact that America itself is tormented by conscience, while its right to survive was considered as a nation founded by immigrants, who usurped the lands of other safe, meek and peaceful people, and then its right to attack them and eradicate them from existence, in this sense, the story of Israel is the story of America with the difference of Israeli claims in the land of exile, which is It finds acceptance among American Protestants who believe – religiously – that the gathering of Jews in the Holy Land is a necessary prelude to the return of our Lord Jesus Christ, peace be upon him.
But this American moral confusion toward Israel has been mitigated, until it has completely removed the fact that the Arab rulers – of their own accord – are secretly and then openly under the wing of Israel, they are the ones who have come out of the conflict on their own, and they are seeking peace with Israel on their own, including the official leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which is – only – concerned with the liberation of Palestine by fighting by all possible means against Israel, George Friedman said in his book in 2012 in which he sets out a vision As a blueprint for what America's policy in the world should be in the ten years after the publication of the book, he wrote that the Arabs were in a state of weakness and Israel was in a position of strength, so that Israel would act freely without taking into account the reactions of the Arabs (p. 148 of the Arabic translation of the book under the title Empire and the Republic in a Changing World). As long as the situation of the Arabs is like this, what pressure is it on America or other America to commit itself to a balanced policy between the Arabs and Israel, this is an equation that is over, the conflict between the Arabs and Israel is over, not a single Arab country is happy or declaring, that it is in conflict with Israel, including the Palestinian National Authority, so George Friedman devotes the sixth chapter of the book to calling on the American empire to distance itself from Israel, and that does not mean that it should abandon it, but it means that America should draw its policy In the Middle East, from the perspective of its interests as an empire, and not from the perspective of Israeli interests, Israel has become strong, just as the Arabs have become weak, so that it has no fear of any Arab threat, and he gives an example of the strongest Arab country, which is Egypt, as Egypt's peace with Israel is the greatest guarantee of Israel's security and survival, as Egypt among the Arabs was the one that owned the threat of Israel, and then this threat was removed by the Camp David Accords of 1978, and there is no possible Egyptian retreat from the commitment on the horizon Among this model emerged the Arab Gulf states, which see the alliance with Israel as serving several goals: a wide door to the United States and its Jewish pressure forces, then an ally against Iran, then ensuring security against sudden dangers, such as the sudden Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the sudden Gulf blockade of Qatar, and then a force that fills the vacuum left by Egypt, Iraq, and Syria.
In such Arab situations, Israel no longer needs someone to take care of it, ensure its survival, ensure its existence and ward off dangers, as it has enough strength and victories to reassure the Arabs from weakness, division, loss of prestige and loss of identity, which makes it absolutely safe. With regard to the Palestinian right, the Palestinians themselves are divided, and all that is required is to nurture this division, then buy time, and then the Palestinian issue will turn into corners of marginalization on its own, which serves the fact that all Arab rulers are concerned not primarily with Israel but with their own people, and with the restlessness of the new generations, and with the calls for change and the demands for democracy. For all of this, George Friedman calls for reassurance about Israel, and calls for distancing itself from it in the sense of planning and implementing a foreign policy that adheres to the interests of the American empire, and not the interests of a superior, advanced, victorious and sovereign small state in the region like Israel.
3- The third point: This distancing from Israel is called by George Friedman to build regional balances of power, which preserve America's interests, set the pace, and preserve the stability of the Middle East by employing its local forces, some of which balance each other, without the need to repeat the direct American intervention with troops and soldiers on the ground, the Arabs are not mentioned among these regional powers, they are not on the map of balances, the important thing is that no oil country is subjected to occupation, this is the whole point, after that, there is no objection to the Gulf countries being under Whether from within, such as Qatar, Kuwait, and the UAE, or from outside, such as the Iranian-Turkish competition for influence, there is no objection to a country like Saudi Arabia being put under pressure from Iranian expansion or Turkish supremacy. The two powers mentioned in building a regional balance away from Israel's dictates to the United States are: Turkey and Iran in the Middle East, Russia and Europe in Eurasia, and India and Pakistan in the Far East. Today, we are focusing on Iran and Turkey.
4- Fourth point: With regard to Iran, it is in Israel's interest to strike Iran's nuclear capabilities decisively, to take it out of the nuclear track completely, Israel is trying to drag America into this, and America avoids it because it has a different assessment of the relationship with Iran, America does not want Iran to be a nuclear power, but it does not mind anything else, it does not mind the survival of the Islamic Republic regime, it does not mind Shiite expansion, it does not mind strong Iranian influence in the Gulf, it understands two important demands of Iran: The only thing that America objects to – after the nuclear and before the nuclear – is for Iran to venture to occupy a Gulf state in an hour or some hours, as Iraq has done before, and as Saudi Arabia may do from afar. Otherwise, Iran's role is required from the perspective of American interests, as it is an element of balance that restrains the Gulf Arabs, and an element of balance that controls the rising Turkish influence.
It is also an element of concern with an unbridled and unbridled power like Israel, and then it – a Shiite power – is balanced against the extremist Sunni Islamic fundamentalists and the anti-terrorist. Iran is an important U.S. interest only on two conditions: without a nuclear weapon, without occupying one or more Gulf states. Other than that, all outstanding issues can be settled between the two countries. On this basis, George Friedman calls for an agreement with Iran, and indeed the agreement was made during the Obama era, then Trump canceled it in his first term, and then Trump takes the initiative to return to negotiations until an agreement can be reached, it is clear that the American initiative does not appeal to Israel, and it is clear that America does not care about agreeing or objecting to Israel, this is primarily in the interest of the empire, America will not respond to Israel's desire to strike Iran's nuclear capabilities, so Iran responds by mining, then closing the Strait of Hormuz, and maritime navigation stops More than 40% of petroleum exports shipped by sea.
5 – The fifth point: Turkish influence in the Middle East is an American interest, it was so during the Cold War and the American confrontation with the Soviet Union until the early 1990s, and then it became so after the fall of the Soviet Union, and the emergence of the so-called Islamic danger until the events of September 11, 2001, and then Turkey's importance in the balance of American interests doubled after that date, the way was cleared for Erdogan's arrival, and then the way was made for his rise, and he succeeded in re-engineering Turkey's internal politics.
Then he succeeded in taking Turkish influence to every inch of the Middle East, at every station that Iran was expanding from the east, Erdogan's Turkey was expanding from all directions, until it became a complete belt that is unbroken and inseparable, and Erdogan's Turkey did not issue 2002-2025, which violates the consensus between him and the Americans, or anything that goes beyond the limits of the permissible role, except what was related to taking matters out in a way that preserves his personal dignity and is consistent with his public image as an Islamic leader For a country that is officially secular and in line with the reality of Turkey as the strongest army and then the strongest economy in the region, Erdogan has succeeded in more than twenty years in bringing Turkey into every home in the Middle East, and not only into the politics of the Middle East. Whether Erdogan remains in office or changes, and whether he is secular or Islamist, Turkey will remain a rising power for decades to come.
……………………………..
This is the triangle of power in the Middle East that is about to be formed, Israel, Iran, Turkey, and the Arabs are not from it for the simple reason that they have chosen peace, which means surrender, comfort and acquiescence in a region where the powerful have lived from eternity under the shadow of the sword, so it has been, and will remain, the focus of conflict forever.