The devastation of the strategic balance in the Middle East, unleashed by Trump and Netanyahu's combined aggression against Iran, appears to have resulted, at least for the moment, in a resounding defeat for both the United States and Israel. This is accompanied by a disintegration of the US military presence in the region, a direct consequence of the destruction of the bases and radar networks it had established for the defense and control of Middle Eastern states, which continues . If one thing is clear from the ongoing conflict, it is that the United States is incapable of defending Israel and all Sunni countries from Iran's hegemonic claims to control the region, and that there is no room for Israel's policy of expansion to the detriment of the Palestinians and neighboring countries, even with the complicity of the Sunni leaderships in the region. In other words, Trump and Netanyahu's defeat marks the failure of the so-called "Abraham Pacts" and the US geostrategic plan that was supposed to support continued US control of the Middle East.
From the conflict, Iran emerged as a new regional power in the area, capable of sustaining and maintaining its own network of proxies while simultaneously inflicting the neutralization of US military coverage on its neighbors. This coverage has actually become a source of instability, having turned these countries into targets within Iran's reach, capable of destroying their military potential and economies at any time by bombing their economic infrastructure and closing the Strait of Hormuz.A new geostrategic configuration in the region appears ever more distant and uncertain, but from the ruins of the previous US hegemony, a new alliance appears to be emerging, identified as the "Alliance of Muhammad." It brings together the forces of Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, creating a near-perfect combination: ground military power, the capital necessary to sustain a war industry, and Pakistan's nuclear power. These countries, taken together, are poised to assume responsibility for security in the region, in a recognized partnership.With the Iranian presence and its proxies, at the suggestion of China, which has fostered a rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran, as an ally of Pakistan, finally achieving unity of action among the Sunni Islamic component, the overwhelming majority in the area. This alliance appears to have decided to assume the responsibility and cost of military management of the area, putting a stop to the project of creating a Greater Israel. The new situation has created all the conditions for Turkey and Egypt to resolve, at least partially, their differences over the "Muslim Brotherhood," and Saudi Arabia has clearly understood that coexistence with Iran on the management of the Strait of Hormuz is a guarantee of its security.
Turkey, which exercises a de facto protectorate over the new Syrian regime, is able to control all its activities and its army borders Israel. To further encroach on Syrian territory and control the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, a vital resource in the region, Israel will have to contend with the Turkish army on the battlefield.
Although Israeli lobbies in the United States are maneuvering to create a symbiosis and fusion between the Israeli and US armies in the design and management of new weapons systems-a trend opposed by many in US military circles-the United States appears aware of this plan for an alliance between Sunni states, to whom they are considering contracting the role of sub-agents, managing the area. It represents a credible alternative and offers them many strays. It has become clear that the excessive and unbearable costs of managing global control through a hegemonic presence cannot be sustained, both operationally and even more so due to the high economic costs. Hence, Trump's decision at the NATO summit in Istanbul to sell Turkey the old US F-35s, although it is unknown which version these are, a decision sufficient to raise serious concerns in Israel, which would like to be the exclusive owner of what is considered the most advanced weaponry.
It is our opinion that the faster the project to build the new "Alliance of Muhammad" moves forward, the closer and more concrete the agreement to suspend hostilities between the United States and Iran will become. This is because the international balance of power does not tolerate a power vacuum, and only the deployment of new forces designed to manage it can bring about peace, removing from the theater of war one of the belligerents, the militarily more capable one, but the one least directly interested in continuing to manage a situation that has become unsustainable domestically and internationally due to the economic damage it is causing. Aversion to Israel in the United States is growing daily, along with doubts about the ever-increasing symbiosis between the United States and the Israeli military, made clear by the refusal and resistance of many Americans to fight a war in Israel's sole and exclusive interest.
Such a stability project offers significant strategic advantages for the United States, as it strengthens ties with a partner, Turkey, which has a significant influence on the balance of power in the Caucasus and Central Europe, as well as playing a stabilizing role in the Middle East. This is a partner that, as Trump says, doesn't create problems, but helps solve them, and this represents a significant leap forward compared to the United States' relationship with Israel, which is burdensome and compromising.
Furthermore, such an operation would have full Chinese support, as evidenced by China's having informed the Gulf Arab countries of its readiness to invest billions of dollars in the construction of industrial plants and infrastructure throughout the Middle East, provided that stability and peace are guaranteed by a balance of power between its ally Iran and the other powers involved in the project. Meanwhile, the United States is asking the Gulf Arab countries to invest their capital in the United States, hoping for unlikely profits. It goes without saying that through this policy, Beijing would secure access to the consumer-rich markets of Turkey and Egypt, where it has a growing presence. It would also take away physical space from the construction of the "Cotton Road," planned by the United States and supported by India, which is intended to compete with the "Silk Road." Indeed, through the construction of communications infrastructure and the north-south corridor that crosses Iran and Pakistan, Chinese goods would have direct access to the Arabian Sea and from there could continue not only to the countries participating in the Alliance of Muhammad, but also to the Mediterranean: a safe and monitored route given that it enjoys control of the Dardanelles Straits, the Suez Canal, the Red Sea, and the Strait of Hormuz.
Stabilizing the Middle East
On the other hand, the stabilization of the Middle East is a prerequisite for the Iranian political system, no longer driven by the need to be defended in the name of guaranteeing Iran's independence and sovereignty, and by the security of its population, to evolve towards conditions of emancipation from religious domination and towards forms of greater popular participation that bring with them respect for civil liberties and greater participation by the population in the exercise of power. It goes without saying that as long as Iran remains a nation under attack, economically sanctioned, threatened with nuclear destruction by the United States or Israel, a nation subject to constant attempts at destabilization aimed at shattering its millennia-old unity, it is quite obvious that the ruling regime, whatever it may be and however great its atrocities, will receive popular support from the majority of the citizenry, especially the most deprived, those of rural Iran, who live thanks to the economic support of those in power-a support that is today very solid: the oceanic crowds at Khamenei's funeral demonstrate this.
Only through international stability in the region can the preconditions be created for the emancipation of the Iranian people, liberation from the regime, and the full realization of the people's freedom. This will determine the evolution of the political system toward laws and customs that respect individual and collective freedom,
religious freedom, and the evolution of Iranian Shiite Islam itself toward forms compatible with a management of society that takes into account human and personal rights, as is the case for many Shiite populations around the world who do not live under siege and whose existence is not contested in the name of their professed religion.
Iranians who have survived the wars have learned firsthand that they certainly cannot trust Israelis, much less Westerners, when they call on them to take to the streets against the regime to regain their civil liberties and promise aid to destabilize and overthrow it. The massacres carried out
by Israeli and US attackers, the targeted assassinations, not only brought about the emergence of a more radical leadership, but also strengthened the military wing of the ruling regime, to the detriment of religious power and, at the same time, strengthened national pride, winning the regime the support, reluctantly, of the entire country.
It should be clear to all Iranians by now that plans to dismember the country's diverse ethnic groups harm everyone's interests and deprive Iran of the resources needed for its development and well-being, unless they want to give vent to the understandable resentment of many who have been and are still being repressed by the regime for their demands for freedom and self-government. Proposing to the Iranians the return of the Shah through the dull and colorless figure of his son is an insult to their intelligence and their history, as well as a complete denial of their interests.
Instigated by Israeli intelligence, the United States has fallen into Israel's trap of becoming an instrument of its expansionist policies, its security needs, its hatred of Arab and Islamic populations, its tendency toward genocide against indigenous populations, its propensity for extermination, applying a sort of law of retaliation, which aims to do to others what the Jewish people suffered at the hands of Westerners in Europe, to liberate the land that God, according to the Bible, had destined for them. Whatever the Israeli ruling class thinks, possession of the atomic bomb and force will not save Israel from destruction unless its ruling class and its people learn to coexist with other populations on the same soil.
The vision of early Zionism for the construction of an interfaith state in which Jews and non-Jews could live freely and cooperate is the most viable option, one that meets the criteria of rationality and justice. However, it will be extremely difficult to erase the hatred sown so abundantly on both sides with the genocide in Gaza and the decades-long oppression of the Palestinians. The approval of the basic law, which makes the country "the national home of the Jewish people," is discriminatory against Israel's Arab citizens and other minority communities and closes the door to this prospect, creating the basis for a conflict whose only outcome is the physical destruction of one of the two competitors: the Israelis or the Palestinians.
The Editorial Staff
https://www.ucadi.org/2026/07/23/lalleanza-di-maometto-futura-guardiana-della-stabilita-nel-medio-oriente/
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten