There is a prevailing sense of ambiguity surrounding the political concept of the Middle East, both in terms of its geographic boundaries and the countries it encompasses, since the term’s first usage in the early 20th century. Despite that, the region remains one of the world’s most unstable and serves as a key focal point in shaping the imagined vision of a “New Middle East.”
This evolving concept cannot be examined without revisiting the attempts made across decades, especially following the October 1973 war and the 1974 disengagement agreements between Egypt and Israel, and later Syria and Israel. Those efforts aimed, in one form or another, to integrate Israel into the region. Yet the emerging “New Middle East” goes far beyond that objective; it envisions deeper dominance and influence under what is now referred to as a “New Regional Order.”
The outlines of this vision have begun materializing on the ground in recent months, particularly following the events of October 7, 2023, and growing efforts to dismantle Iran’s regional proxies, most notably, Hezbollah’s disarmament and integration into the Lebanese state. These shifts are mirrored in major developments such as the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, the visit of newly appointed Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa to Saudi Arabia, and the lifting of U.S. economic sanctions on Syria. Such steps hint at the possibility of a wide-reaching security arrangement with Israel; potentially culminating in a formal political agreement.
From this perspective, the emerging Middle East seems increasingly aligned with the strategic repositioning of Israel; ensuring its security, stabilizing conflict zones, and normalizing its regional presence. However, the long road Washington and Tel Aviv have travelled since the 1970s presents complex challenges to achieving this model in full.
Read also: From Sykes–Picot to the ‘New Middle East’: Will Regional Borders Hold?
Exceptional Relationships
In this context, political analyst Majed Kayali argues that “field instability remains a dominant feature of the Middle East, reducing the chances of reaching a genuine settlement in current negotiations between Hamas and Israel in Doha.”
Speaking to +963, Kayali notes that the “New Middle East” vision is closely tied to the exceptional relationship between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, especially evident during Netanyahu’s third visit to the U.S. during Trump’s renewed term in office.
He points out that Israel’s doctrine of “peace through strength” no longer faces resistance in Washington. On the contrary, U.S. policy increasingly appears to embrace this approach.
Kayali concludes that the vision for a New Middle East, one that secures Israel’s strategic future, is being jointly drawn by Washington and Tel Aviv, anchored in the concept of power-backed peace.
Retired Egyptian General Yasser Hashem adds that the notion of a “New Middle East” remains vague, largely due to conflicting interests among regional and international actors.
He tells +963, “The issue isn’t Israel’s security per se, but the country’s attempts to force normalization projects on its own terms. This could ultimately undermine such efforts.”
Hashem also points to Israel’s significant headway in weakening Iran’s ideological proxies in Lebanon and Syria, along with ongoing negotiations with President Ahmad al-Sharaa’s new Syrian administration and increased pressure to disarm Hezbollah. He emphasizes Israel’s broader efforts to dismantle Hamas in Gaza as part of this multi-track approach to regional security.
Based on these developments, Israel appears to be pursuing a multi-pronged strategy, through military operations in Lebanon and Syria and reciprocal strikes with Iran. In addition to its continued push for normalization agreements with Arab states it hasn’t yet reached, especially Syria and Saudi Arabia.
Israel’s Security
On the other hand, David Des Roches, former U.S. Department of Defense official, says there is no formal American government vision for a “New Middle East.” However, he acknowledges that recent events may be pushing one into shape.
He asserts that neutralizing Iran’s regional proxies is key, noting: “Until recently, Iranian leaders proudly claimed influence over several Arab capitals. That’s no longer the case.”
Speaking to +963, Des Roches emphasizes that “for Israelis, security is non-negotiable.” However, he notes that Israel’s political system encourages unstable coalitions, limiting the ability to seriously engage with the Palestinian issue. “Israel prefers to portray Palestinians as insurgents while advancing normalization, but I don’t believe that’s feasible at this stage.”
Read also: U.S. Strategy in Syria Between Kurdish Autonomy and National Unity
Meanwhile, international affairs expert Kamal al-Zaghoul argues that Henry Kissinger’s “New Middle East” idea has ultimately failed to deliver its intended outcomes.
In comments to +963, he states: “If Kissinger’s goal was to ensure Israel’s security through peace, we’ve returned to square one.”
Zaghoul notes that even landmark agreements, such as those between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority, didn’t prevent Israel from reverting to preemptive military strategies and operations across multiple fronts. This, in his view, marks a failure of both the agreements and Kissinger’s broader approach, due to inconsistent implementation by successive U.S. administrations.
“When we speak about a ‘new image’ of the Middle East,” Zaghoul says, “we need to talk about real progress. But instead, we’ve seen clear regression.” He adds that the U.S. never publicly embraced Kissinger’s theory of exporting democracy, and points to how long Bashar al-Assad was allowed to remain in power before being ousted.
He describes the security landscape as a “closed loop in which Israel keeps circling, with no clear exit,” heavily dependent on shifting U.S. strategies.
Zaghoul concludes that Kissinger’s vision for a global order didn’t succeed, it backfired, harming American interests and paving the way for China’s rise through projects like the “Belt and Road” initiative, and expanded influence in global trade, defense exports, and diplomacy.
“Israel today is less secure than it once was,” he says. “It has adopted a rigid security policy built on preemptive strikes, even against countries it has formal peace deals with, let alone those with no agreements at all.”
He closes by noting that “the Middle East isn’t the only theater in play, it’s just one part of a much broader U.S. global strategy. That’s why some countries are now leaning toward a doctrine of strategic patience.”
