Between Al-Aqsa Flood operation (October 2023) and the Sharm El-Sheikh Summit (October 2025), the Palestinian issue and the West Asia region witnessed major wars and geopolitical transformations that may usher the region into a new historical phase\u2014one whose contours the United States and Israel have sought to shape for decades. This new phase is based on the establishment of a new Middle Eastern order governed by complete American dominance over the region and by granting Israel a central role within it, following the dismantling of regimes and forces resisting its Zionist project in Palestine and the surrounding area. There are also clear indications of a redrawing of the geopolitical boundaries of certain states in the region, including Israel itself, which seeks to expand its borders in line with historical ambitions and projects that the Zionist movement had pursued even before the establishment of the Israeli state.<\/p>\n
While the \u201cNew Middle East\u201d project promoted by the United States today is not entirely new\u2014having been under development since the early 1990s\u2014what is new is the project\u2019s overt colonial character. The United States appears increasingly willing to pursue a form of direct dominance in the region and has already begun implementing aspects of this approach in some states and political entities. Although multiple factors are pushing the region toward this outcome, other factors continue to hinder the realization of this new American colonial project, leaving the region open to several possible futures.<\/p>\n
Many writers, analysts, and politicians seek to portray the new American colonial policy in the region as a distinctly Trumpian phenomenon. However, placing the wars, interventions, and American projects unfolding in the region and the wider world within their historical context reveals that most\u2014if not all\u2014of the strategic projects and imperial ambitions that the United States is pursuing today did not originate in the Trump era. Trump may have stamped these projects and their implementation with a more extreme, aggressive, and often erratic character, reflecting a highly self-centered, authoritarian, and narcissistic disposition that aligns closely with Zionist projects in the region, including their expansionist and dispossessive dimensions. At the same time, these developments coincide with objective transformations taking place both within the United States and globally. These transformations have generated a growing inclination toward hardline policies among a significant segment of American decision-makers and voters, particularly those who embrace a populist, America-centered worldview. Among the most important of these changes is the realignment of American society along political and social currents that transcend the traditional divisions that have historically structured the two dominant parties within the American political system. Another major development is the increasing concentration of wealth and the growing power of a financial oligarchy whose far-reaching ambitions include harnessing advanced technologies and artificial intelligence to accelerate capital accumulation and expand its influence over political decision-making. This oligarchic elite also seeks to give American imperial power a cosmic dimension that extends beyond the global sphere, broadening the scope of economic exploitation and military-security control from the Earth and its atmosphere into outer space and other planets. Such aspirations are driven by high-technology corporations eager to open the cosmic frontier to their interests while unleashing artificial intelligence and increasingly autonomous, quasi-living\u2014or perhaps even living\u2014artificial entities. In the process, they risk marginalizing the human being, both as an individual and as a social actor, who has traditionally occupied\u2014at least in theory\u2014a central place in Western culture and society, as well as in many other cultures around the world. Conversely, a growing divide has emerged between the forces that dominate the two major American parties and a broad segment of the younger generation. This generation increasingly rebels against a social, economic, and political reality that no longer reflects its aspirations or interests. It is also less constrained by the traditional mechanisms of opinion-making and public consciousness, whose influence over society has steadily declined. The narratives and stereotypes propagated by these institutions regarding many global issues are gradually losing their effectiveness. This shift has been accelerated by the rise and widespread adoption of social media in the digital age. Social media has disrupted the one-way relationship that once existed between traditional media organizations\u2014producers and transmitters of news and opinion\u2014and passive audiences. It has also weakened the dominance of purely domestic issues over the media landscape and public debate. As a result, audiences, particularly younger generations, have become increasingly capable of engaging directly with events around the world, participating in the production of news, and shaping public opinion independently of the traditional systems of information and consciousness formation controlled by ruling economic elites, which in turn exert substantial influence over decision-making within both the state and the two dominant political parties. For a presidential candidate drawn from the American oligarchic class, one of the most effective ways to counter this emerging youth-driven, liberation-oriented movement\u2014often associated with the political left in the Western sense\u2014is to adopt an America-centered populist discourse. Such a discourse is frequently accompanied by a tendency toward the militarization of American society and the expansion of the role of the armed forces and the National Guard in managing domestic crises and suppressing popular movements or opposition to presidential policies, whether on domestic or foreign affairs.<\/p>\n
On the global stage, as the position of the United States within the world economy declines and the economic and military capabilities of certain major and emerging powers with independent orientations continue to grow\u2014particularly China, Russia, and Iran\u2014the United States has exhibited an increasingly interventionist and militarily aggressive posture abroad. Historically, American foreign policy has revolved around several fundamental pillars. The first is the preservation of American global hegemony and the prevention of the emergence of any genuine rival capable of challenging U.S. leadership of the international system. The second is the protection of the neoliberal capitalist order and the principles of free-market economics worldwide. The third is the maintenance of low-tariff trade among global markets, a system that was originally expected to benefit the American economy and other Western capitalist economies. Over time, however, this framework produced unintended consequences as the low-cost productive capacities of certain developing countries\u2014most notably China\u2014expanded dramatically. This development contributed to the rise of protectionist tendencies and economic nationalism among advocates of an America-centered right wing in the United States, led most prominently by Trump. It also reinforced efforts to confront any model of governance capable of becoming a serious competitor to the United States, or one that diverges from the Western neoliberal capitalist model and challenges American interests and the broader imperial projects associated with them. The fourth pillar is the pursuit of dominance over traditional energy resources and rare-earth minerals, which constitute essential raw materials for advanced manufacturing and high-technology industries. The fifth pillar represents a particularly central and enduring component of American foreign policy. Unlike the previous pillars, it cannot be understood solely through the lens of electoral politics or economic interests. Rather, it requires a structural-historical analysis drawing upon political economy, culture, and ideology in order to explain its place within American foreign policy\u2014and, indeed, within certain dimensions of domestic politics as well. Today, this component faces what many perceive as a genuine challenge from the emerging Generation Z in the United States. This challenge helps explain the intensity of Trumpist efforts to confront the political and cultural orientations associated with this generation, particularly its broadly left-leaning positions on social and economic issues, as well as its criticism of American foreign policy. This is especially evident in attitudes toward the war in Gaza, which many activists and critics describe as genocidal, and more broadly in growing debates regarding the legitimacy of the State of Israel itself. These debates have, in turn, led to increased scrutiny of American support for Israel during the conflict, including direct military assistance, as well as of broader U.S. efforts to reshape the Middle East in ways intended to eliminate any governmental or popular actor that supports Palestinian resistance movements or opposes what critics characterize as an expansionist and discriminatory Zionist project in the region. From this perspective, support for Israel and the containment or elimination of forces opposed to it constitute one of the most enduring constants of American policy in the Middle East and one of the principal objectives of the long-standing \u201cNew Middle East\u201d project that successive American administrations have sought to advance for decades.<\/p>\n
The project of a \u201cNew Middle East\u201d emerged in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War, pursuing several objectives, the most important of which were the resolution of the Arab\u2013Israeli conflict and the establishment of \u201cpeace\u201d between the Arab states and Israel on the basis of a two-state solution, the recovery of Palestinian and Arab territories occupied in 1967\u2014with the possibility of adjustments to existing borders\u2014and the normalization of economic and political relations between the Arab world and Israel. The United States sought to impose this framework of \u201cpeace\u201d on most Arab actors by capitalizing, on the one hand, on its overwhelming victory in the Gulf War, the establishment of military bases throughout the Gulf region, its effective control over regional security, and the subordination of a large number of Arab governments to its political will and security umbrella. On the other hand, it also benefited from the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc following the war, which left Arab states opposed to the American-Israeli project, as well as those providing support to resistance movements in the region, increasingly exposed and isolated. Yet the transformation of global power relations after the Gulf War and the collapse of the Soviet Union and its allies proved insufficient to create the conditions necessary for the United States to fully implement its regional project. This was particularly true with the rise of what became known as the \u201cAxis of Resistance\u201d in the region. Consequently, the negotiation tracks launched after the Gulf War\u2014most notably those associated with Oslo and Geneva\u2014failed to produce a comprehensive settlement of all aspects of the Arab\u2013Israeli conflict. This was especially evident on the Syrian-Lebanese front, where the strategy of armed resistance was viewed by its proponents as the most effective means of liberating the majority of occupied Lebanese territory without conditions or concessions. At the same time, the outcomes of the various peace agreements reached through negotiation\u2014particularly on the Palestinian track\u2014were seen by many critics as demonstrating the failure of these processes to restore even the portion of Palestinian rights that had been envisaged under the agreements themselves.<\/p>\n
With the change of administration in the United States at the beginning of the new millennium and the arrival of the neoconservatives in the White House under the presidency of George W. Bush, who assembled an administration composed of some of the most influential figures of that movement\u2014individuals closely aligned with the Zionist project and eager to secure access to the region\u2019s oil and gas wealth\u2014American policy became increasingly aggressive. Calls intensified for military action against Iraq and Iran and for the overthrow of other governments in the region. The attacks of September 11, 2001 provided the new American administration with the opportunity to pursue a major transformation of the Middle East aimed at eliminating what it described as the \u201cAxis of Evil,\u201d namely those Arab and Islamic states and regimes opposed to Israel and to American policies in the region. This strategy led first to the invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001, followed by the invasion of Iraq in 2003. According to the author’s interpretation, plans were also in place to target Iran and bring about regime change in Syria. However, mounting pressure and growing casualties among American occupation forces in Iraq prevented the United States from extending its military campaign against the remaining states identified as part of the \u201cAxis of Evil,\u201d particularly Iran and Syria. As a result, the broader objective of constructing a \u201cGreater Middle East\u201d through direct military intervention remained unrealized.<\/p>\n
The July 2006 War between Israel and Lebanon occurred within this same strategic context. According to this interpretation, its objectives were to remove the threat posed by the resistance\u2019s missile capabilities along Israel\u2019s borders, to pave the way for any future Israeli strike against Iran\u2019s nuclear program, to further isolate Syria, and ultimately to weaken the \u201cAxis of Resistance\u201d as a prelude to the realization of the broader Greater Middle East project. However, both Israel and the United States failed to achieve their objectives in that war. As a result, the project of constructing a New Middle East\u2014or Greater Middle East\u2014remained effectively shelved within American strategic planning, awaiting more favorable conditions for its implementation, whether through war or through diplomacy. Subsequently, developments continued to accumulate across the Arab world. Beginning with the aftermath of 2006 and extending through the uprisings of the Arab Spring, the region experienced profound political transformations and deep social and political divisions. These developments reshaped the regional landscape and created new opportunities and challenges for competing political projects. During his first presidential term, Donald Trump advanced the project of the Abraham Accords, promoting a new framework for \u201cpeace\u201d between Arab states and Israel. In the author’s view, this represented a more radical version of earlier peace initiatives, one that abandoned the two-state solution for Palestine and did not provide for the recovery by Lebanon and Syria of territories occupied by Israel, including the Golan Heights, the Shebaa Farms, and other Lebanese territories that remained under Israeli control following Israel\u2019s withdrawal from most of southern Lebanon in 2000.<\/p>\n
In contrast, Arab concessions to the United States and Israel reached their peak amid what the author describes as a gradual process of liquidating the Palestinian cause, a process that the administrations of Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu were pursuing through various means. These included successive military campaigns against Gaza, the imposition of a severe blockade on the territory, the acceleration of Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank, efforts to displace Palestinians from their land, and the promotion of the Abraham Accords and broader normalization agreements that the United States sought to advance throughout the region. Against this backdrop, Operation Al-Aqsa Flood of October 2023 emerged, according to the author’s interpretation, as a response to this process of marginalization and dismantlement of the Palestinian cause, taking place amid either Arab silence or, in some cases, implicit approval.<\/p>\n
Following the operation, the Israeli-American war against Gaza and against certain members of the so-called \u201cAxis of Resistance\u201d assumed characteristics that, in the author’s view, differed significantly from those of conventional wars in contemporary history. The author argues that what he characterizes as a genocide in the Gaza Strip was carried out over a period of two years in full view of the international community, without provoking what he regards as meaningful condemnation or serious efforts to halt it\u2014particularly from Western governments and, in some instances, from Arab states as well.<\/p>\n
The author argues that the administration of Joe Biden\u2014despite its Democratic Party affiliation\u2014participated directly alongside Israel in the war, through planning, implementation, armament, and financing. According to this perspective, some of the gravest atrocities of the conflict were committed against civilians, including the wounded, paramedics, physicians, journalists, hospitals, and a wide range of civilian infrastructure, all under American political and military backing. The author further contends that Gaza, with its history, cultural heritage, and civil institutions, was devastated largely through the use of American-supplied weaponry. The author also maintains that the administration of Donald Trump sought to remove Gaza and its population from the political map altogether, replacing it with colonial-style developments and placing it under the administration of an externally appointed authority. Ultimately, however, after what the author describes as a clear Israeli and American failure to eliminate Gaza despite the scale of destruction inflicted upon it, Trump convened leaders from dozens of Arab, Islamic, and other countries in an effort to impose a \u201cpeace agreement\u201d for Gaza. In the author’s assessment, this agreement amounted to little more than a fragile ceasefire arrangement. Its principal priorities were the recovery of Israeli hostages, both living and deceased, and the disarmament of Palestinian resistance groups. At the same time, the author argues, the agreement lacked any genuine plan\u2014or even meaningful guarantees\u2014for achieving a lasting peace in Gaza or resolving the broader Palestinian question, including within the framework of a two-state solution based on United Nations resolutions. From this perspective, the central objective of the summit was the release of hostages and the elimination of Palestinian armed resistance, which the author views as having imposed a new strategic reality on the Arab\u2013Israeli conflict\u2014or on what remains of its Arab dimension. According to this argument, that new reality made it increasingly difficult to resolve the Palestinian issue in accordance with the latest American-Israeli agenda, especially after the first and second Trump administrations had, in the author’s view, abandoned longstanding assumptions concerning the two-state solution, East Jerusalem, and the status of the Golan Heights, while fully embracing Israel’s strategic vision. The author concludes by asserting that, less than ten days after the signing of the peace agreement at Sharm El-Sheikh, the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, approved the annexation of the West Bank into the Israeli state.<\/p>\n
On the other fronts intertwined with the Palestinian issue, particularly in Lebanon and Syria, the author argues that the United States has moved toward imposing a form of direct colonial tutelage following the war in Lebanon (2024) and the collapse of the Syrian government and destruction of state institutions and military capabilities in Syria (2024). According to this perspective, in Lebanon the United States has begun preparing the country to function as a colony\u2014or, at the very least, as a military, intelligence, and diplomatic base serving American interests in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Arab Mashreq. The author contends that Washington is currently reshaping the Lebanese state and its administrative, civilian, military, and security institutions in a manner consistent with this project of American oversight and with the future role envisioned for Lebanon within it. The author further claims that the United States now effectively manages the affairs of both Lebanon and Syria through what he describes as a non-resident \u201chigh commissioner,\u201d who visits the two countries periodically to issue directives to political leaders and officials whom he characterizes as functional authorities brought to power through American influence or through external forces aligned with American policy. In the Lebanese case, the author argues that ministers and senior civil servants increasingly require American approval or recommendation for their appointments. He also claims that members of the Lebanese Armed Forces receive part of their salaries directly from the United States without those funds passing through the state budget or even through the military command structure. From the author’s perspective, the primary focus of American pressure in Lebanon today is the disarmament of the resistance movement, with the objective of stripping Lebanon of what remains of its capacity to confront Israel. Under this framework, both Lebanon and Syria\u2014neighboring states to the territories occupied by Israel in 1948\u2014are expected to remain free of any military capabilities, whether state-based or non-state, that could pose a threat to Israel. In practical terms, the author argues, this would leave both countries without genuine sovereignty and under American tutelage. The author concludes by warning of what he views as a real danger to the territorial integrity of both Lebanon and Syria. In his assessment, they face the prospect either of fragmentation into sectarian entities or of the loss of portions of their territory through expansion by Israel and Turkey.<\/p>\n
This, according to the author, is the model of the \u201cNew Middle East\u201d that the United States seeks to establish in a region placed under American tutelage or direct colonial control: a region filled with American military bases; Arab states whose rulers lack independent will; armies reduced to disarmed forces without real deterrent capability; national wealth amounting to trillions siphoned off as periodic tribute to the United States; natural resources under American control; and societies fragmented into competing tribes, sects, and denominations.<\/p>\n
However, the author argues that, in the final analysis, such a trajectory cannot and will not persist. History is not written in this manner, nor are the futures of peoples or the dynamics of societies shaped in such a way. Liberation movements, including resistance forces, remain\u2014according to this view\u2014the only viable option capable of halting this downward trajectory and saving the region from both the Zionist project and what the author characterizes as a new form of American colonialism.<\/p>\n
Related Books:<\/strong><\/p>\n Trump\u2019s Promise: The Embodiment of Greater Israel<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n