Between Discourse and Reality. Paradoxes of Politics in the Middle East
Afrasianet - Abd Al Aziz Al Mustafa - The Chinese philosopher Han Feizi recounts that a man used to sell armor and spears, and boast about them, saying, "My shields are not pierced by a spear, and my spears pierce everything."
Someone asked him, "What if you stab your shield with your spear?!" A simple question, but it can bring down a whole system of illusion, because obvious issues do not need to be made noise, but rather a clarity that reveals the data and derives their significance before it is too late.
Perhaps the most dangerous thing that our Arab world is experiencing today is the decline of frank questions about the fate of the nation in light of the ongoing transformations, as disparities may not be overthrown by war, but they will inevitably collapse at the first rational question.
It has become clear that crises in the region do not begin from the moment they erupt, but rather from the calm that precedes them, and may arise when the parties sit at a mock negotiating table, not for a solution, but as a tactical deception maneuver, pending the completion of the confrontation tools, from the aircraft carrier to the military build-up and the expansion of the target bank.
Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger summed it up in the words: "The problem in the Middle East is not in the negotiations, but in the ability to end them."
The dilemma stems from the insistence on reading the facts away from the logic of dialogue, and that is why some diplomatic talks in the region become just a cover for a reality that is heading towards more complexity and danger, in light of the efforts of some parties to perpetuate the path of confrontation rather than resolve it.
The growing tension between the United States and Israel on the one hand, and Iran on the other, is the result of a long trajectory of chronic unaddressed imbalances, stretching across maps of influence and wealth, revealing the depth of the gap between political discourse and the course of events.
The real danger lies not in the contradictions themselves, but in denying them, insisting on managing them instead of dissolving them radically, in pursuit of temporary gains, or employing them in a game of narrow balances at the expense of the stability of the region and its global repercussions.
Tensions only explode when the gap between what is said and what is happening on the ground widens, and good judgment lies not only in balancing forces, but also in setting their rhythm when they collide, so that they do not lose the ability to retreat.
Therefore, political foresight requires anticipating international and regional transformations and preparing for their consequences early, before they turn into successive fissures that will bequeath open wars to future generations. We may find ourselves forcibly driven by them and their catastrophic consequences: political, economic, social, and security.
The real danger lies not in the contradictions themselves – they are part of the nature of politics – but in denying them and insisting on managing them instead of dissolving them radically, in pursuit of temporary gains, or employing them in a game of narrow balances at the expense of the stability of the region and its global repercussions.
Here, the imbalance of discourse and the divergence of actions turn into a focal point of turmoil, a prelude to decisions made under the pressure of a confused reality, and a strategic vacuum that deepens the state of impasse.
Experience has shown that the cost of ignoring facts is higher than the price of acknowledging them, especially when messages are sent with military tools, so that their consequences become more difficult to contain, and the circle of losses expands to include the economy, the future of generations, and, most importantly, the social cohesion of the region.
The parties to the conflict should first take into account considerations of neighborliness, geopolitical balance, and mutual interests, and appreciate the efforts to contain the escalation by the Gulf states as a whole. However, some actions have gone in the opposite direction, flouting the principles and norms of international law.
These uncalculated policies are reminiscent of desperate attempts by some powers to make extreme choices to express the closure of the horizon, as happened in the last days of World War II, when dozens of Japanese pilots resorted to kamikaze attacks, and the pilot turned his explosives-laden plane into a human bomb that directly collided with the opponent's equipment and ships.
I am afraid that this rational balance will be lost, and the spear will turn on its bearer before its shield protects it, and then the losses will not only be political and military, but also existential.
These attacks have become a symbol of the lack of alternatives and the loss of the initiative, not of the strength of those options, as they failed to achieve their goals and did not change the course of the war, but rather hastened its end, in the absence of a strategic vision that recognizes reality away from the logic of "us or nobody."
Despite the bitterness of events, the countries of the region have proven that they are capable, if united, of forming a shield that protects their stability and a spear that deters their opponents.
Do we have an awareness of the sensitivity of the stage that amounts to asking the right questions, in order to reach a sustainable peace protected by the shields of truth and the arrows of justice, and paving the way for the completion of the renaissance?
This forces the region's actors to move from conflict management to conflict dismantling, through a frank and transparent dialogue that rearranges common interests away from preconceived notions.
The fundamental question remains: Is what we are witnessing a prelude to ending the conflict? Or is it a postponement of an inevitable implosion?
In conclusion, I fear that this rational balance will be lost, and the spear will turn on its bearer before its shield protects it; then the losses will not only be political and military, but also existential ones that affect everyone, even those who thought they were immune from it.
