Many politicians may not perceive that we are standing at this very moment on the threshold of the world splitting into two competing global poles, if not antagonistic. It is no longer a secret to anyone the impact of this division on the countries of the Middle East and the world at large.
We may be heading towards a division characterized by East and West, where the United States and the neo-colonial powers dominate the northern part of the world comprehensively, with pockets of influence in the Middle East, Africa, and South America. For example, Argentina has shown its alignment with Israel in its aggression against the Palestinian people, demonstrating a completely hostile stance towards the liberation movement, and is striving to dollarize its national currency to solidify its dependence on the United States, under the illusion that this could improve its economic situation. It seems that Argentina has not learned from the experiences of its neighbors.
America is Not an Honest Broker
In the Middle East, some countries have taken a stance in one way or another; either through the Abraham Accords or by seeking normalization with Israel at any cost, even if belatedly, while maintaining a malleable rhetoric that can be reshaped according to circumstances and changes regarding the Palestinian cause.
The world's split seems closer than ever before, and the astute are those who can skillfully play at the critical moment, exploiting the advantages of the gray area to achieve tangible goals without falling into the traps of vague promises, as has happened at various historical junctures. This is especially true for the Arabs, whose wealth and alliances have not benefitted them. All Arab alliances with the United States, no matter how strategic, will not be of any use if they are in an existential conflict with Israel or any other ally. This has been proven, and time continues to prove it every day.
Further, the Arabs have surrendered their decision-making to the West, and as a result, everyone is blackmailing them; they have even become part of the tools of extortion themselves. Recently, Arab mediators threatened Hamas leaders to accept the American initiative on Gaza or be expelled from their countries! Such a threat was not directed at Israel, which occupies and commits documented genocide against Palestinians.
The Nuseirat massacre is not solely a Zionist action but the result of complex American planning and execution. It is not merely about providing multifaceted intelligence support; a thousand American soldiers came to Gaza. Why? The Arabs, as usual, believed the American narrative that a thousand of their soldiers came to help the people of Gaza. However, the winds revealed the falsehood of this claim, sweeping away the deceptive facade. According to the RT Arabic website, citing CNN, American forces participated alongside Israeli forces in the attack on the Nuseirat camp. In turn, Hamas clarified that "the revelations by American and Hebrew media about American participation in the criminal operation carried out today, demonstrate and prove once again the complicity of the American administration and its full participation in the war crimes committed in the Gaza Strip, and the falsehood of its declared positions regarding the humanitarian situation and its concern for the lives of civilians." This is not the only evidence that exposes the falsehood of the mediation role between Palestinians and Zionists; the United States has never been and will never be an honest broker in any conflict involving Arabs or Muslims. How many times has the United States thwarted resolutions to stop the war? How many times has it opposed the principle of recognizing the Palestinian State? We do not need much evidence; it is readily available.
In a previous article, we mentioned that the events in the Red Sea are not isolated from the broader global conflicts. They cannot be separated in any way from the war in Ukraine or from the hidden or overt U.S.-China conflict over Taiwan and influence in the China Sea, and China finds itself forced to proceed with building a supportive Asian alliance; and who is a better partner for it currently than Russia?
“The chances for local forces to move against the tide of global division will dwindle, forcing them to orbit around the powers they ally with. The situation will become increasingly complex as these parties open new conflict fronts that they do not need and are not capable of managing the repercussions.”
Merely Complementary Details
The United States is engaged in an existential conflict with China, which is considered a strategic enemy, according to American experts. Thus, on April 12, 2024, it announced its commitment to defend Japan and the Philippines against China if their aircraft or ships are attacked in the South China Sea. Notably, it was the United States, not China or Russia, that launched the nuclear attack on Japan. Furthermore, it was the United States that waged war on the Philippines after Spain ceded the territory to it, resulting in the death of at least 200,000 Filipino civilians, most of whom perished from famine and disease. Some estimates suggest that the total number of civilian casualties approached one million. The war and subsequent American occupation altered the islands' culture, imposed Protestantism, dissolved the Catholic Church, and introduced English to the islands as a primary language for government, education, business, and industry.
All indications clearly point to a close interconnectedness in global events, with some developments coming to the forefront while others recede to become mere complementary details in an almost complete overall picture.
Moreover, the West has crossed all the lines that Russia considers "critical red lines" in the Ukrainian war. In this concern, we previously mentioned that the West would supply Ukraine with F-16 aircraft, and possibly more, and that France would deploy the Foreign Legion or parts of it to Ukraine. All of this has come true, and it has even gone further with the lifting of restrictions on using Western weapons to strike deep into Russian territories. However, will all of this pass without a Russian response?
Certainly not; it will not pass without a Russian response. On June 7, 2024, during the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, the Russian President stated: "We are not supplying weapons anymore, but we reserve the right to do so for those countries or even certain legal entities under certain pressures, including those of a military nature." He further added, "If they [the Western countries] send these weapons to the conflict zone and call for their use to strike our territories, why shouldn't we have the right to do the same thing and respond in a proportionate manner?"
Therefore, given this situation, what prevents the idea from being implemented?
In this regard, author Konstantin Dvinisky comments on the Houthis' attack on the American aircraft carrier in the Red Sea, saying : "While Russia and the West contemplate retaliatory measures against each other, fearing further escalation, the Yemeni Houthis demonstrate through their actions that they do not care at all about 'global dominance,' 'red lines,' or 'serious warnings.'"
In response to the West's permission to use its weapons to strike Russia, he says, "We can respond by arming the Houthis with the latest types of weapons. What if Russian satellites were used to correct attacks on the American Navy's aircraft carrier group, and the Radio Intelligence Units of the Russian Armed Forces were deployed in the Yemeni mountains, and instead of Iranian ballistic missiles, our missiles were launched at Dwight Eisenhower?"
This is the likely scenario. We must imagine its impact on the national political landscape. In such a case, the chances for local forces to move against the tide of global division will dwindle, forcing them to orbit around the powers they ally with. The situation will become increasingly complex as these parties open new conflict fronts that they do not need and are not capable of managing the repercussions.
Can the local conflict parties disengage from their allegiance to others and work, perhaps for the last time, for the benefit of this country?
