The US, the new Middle East order and the continuity of dependency

The US, the new Middle East order and the continuity of dependency – I

NEW METHODS OF THE NEW POLICY

In domestic and foreign policy, backdoor diplomacy, the use of intermediaries and informal networks are commonplace. As politics is about getting results, the US in particular prefers the most direct route in many problems and crises, establishing contact, holding talks and negotiating with every actor, including those it has declared its enemies.

However, as a characteristic of the era we live in, the Trump administration has taken this approach a step further and deliberately excluded institutionalism.

Turkish Ambassador and Special Representative to Syria Tom Barrack, Special Representative Steve Witkoff, and his son-in-law and advisor Jared Kushner are shaping the Middle East through direct leader diplomacy, bypassing traditional institutions. These three individuals are involved in everything from the Peace Committee in Gaza to the Yemeni Civil War and Iran, without any ethical concerns or regard for the expectations of the countries and peoples of the region, imposing solutions when necessary. They deal only with Trump; even Secretary of State Rubio is unaware of many decisions. Because the goal is to reshape the Middle East quickly. When necessary, they squeeze personal commercial, financial, and investment opportunities into every political meeting and transformation as an element of the new era, alongside traditional methods such as the use of military force or diplomacy.

ISRAEL’S SECURITY ISSUE

The US’s goal of reducing its engagement in the region and ensuring Israel’s security for decades to come are part of the same policy. For this reason, the US has pursued a three-pronged strategy for Israel’s security.

1- Regimes that could cause problems for Israel were eliminated by military means. Over a long period, regimes that were anti-Western (rejecting integration into neoliberalism and refusing to abandon social welfare policies, nationalist, and leaning on countries such as Russia and China) were overthrown by the US and its allies. Libya (Gaddafi), Iraq (Saddam) and, most recently, Syria (Assad). The final link in this chain is, of course, Iran. However, because Iran is different from the others in terms of scale and capacity, a more subtle and protracted strategy was required. We are currently at this stage.

2- On the diplomatic front, the US made an important diplomatic move that will contribute to Israel’s security. It also implemented processes such as the Abraham Accords, which envisage Arab countries that have not yet recognised Israel to do so. Although paused due to the massacre in Gaza, the US will exert its influence and try to continue the process.

3- Organisations that could cause problems for Israel were suppressed, and their leaderships were eliminated. Examples include Hezbollah and Hamas.

While the US intervened militarily to ease the pressure on Israel, it turned a blind eye to Israel’s brutal massacres in Gaza, its assassination in Tehran, and its attacks on Lebanon, Syria, and even its ally Qatar.

The most significant difference of opinion between the Trump administration and Israel emerged in Syria. Trump wanted the Assad regime to dominate the country, while Israel wanted a divided, unstable and weak Damascus regime. This tension was resolved with the agreement in Paris on 5-6 January, with Assad generally bowing to Israel’s demands.

TOWARDS AN IDEOLOGY-FREE MIDDLE EAST?

The Middle East region has transformed into a geography that has lost the influence of ideologies throughout its historical process. Today, no one speaks of Pan-Arabism; Baathism and Arab nationalism were eliminated not only institutionally but also ideologically with the overthrow of parties and regimes in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. The ideology that came closest to the left in the region was Baathism, which, although not based on a working class and possessing an authoritarian-bureaucratic administration, emphasised social welfare policies. Apart from that, leftist movements could not gain strength in a region where the working class was weak.

Islamism was the strongest ideology in this region throughout the 20th century. However, both political Islamism declined and the social influence of religion in the region began to wane.

The Muslim Brotherhood, the most organised political Islamist movement in the wider Middle East, is now considered a terrorist organisation, particularly in Egypt, where it originated. Most recently, the Trump administration designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organisation. As the US re-establishes its influence in the region, its priority is authoritarian leaders, not political Islamist movements.

In Syria, Shara, who comes from a radical Islamist background, can be seen as an exception to this process. However, Shara was chosen not because he is Islamist, but because they could only overthrow Assad with the help of the HTS, and because it would be easier to govern the country with an actor who is Sunni, recruited from the organisation, and completely dependent on the West.

While the Islamist regime in Iran has been forced to back down on the headscarf ban, Saudi Arabia, the centre of Wahhabism, is taking surprising steps towards secularisation under the Salman regime. Thus, Islamism is in decline both at the governmental level ‘from above’ and at the societal level ‘from below’.

The US and Israel do not want an alternative ideological ground to emerge that would divide Arab and Muslim societies, mobilise them and enable their political organisation.

The order being attempted to be established in this region is one led by leaders open to all kinds of bargaining, stable internally, serving the US-Israel strategy externally, with a weak civil society and a dysfunctional democracy. In this way, there will be no organised, systematic resistance to imperialist interventions from outside the region.

To be continued…

Note: This article is translated from the original article titled ABD, yeni Ortadoğu düzeni ve bağımlılığın sürekliliği – I, published in BirGün newspaper on February 17, 2026.