Is the United States Seeking Stability or Redrawing the Map?
From Religious Narrative to Geopolitical Doctrine
The U.S. ambassador’s comments regarding Israel’s purported right to control a geography stretching “from the Nile to the Euphrates” cannot be dismissed as a personal opinion or emotional outburst. Rather, they appear rooted in an ideological framework seeking to recast political Zionism through a selective religious lens — one that invokes sacred texts to legitimize territorial expansionism.
While many Jews worldwide do not equate the political existence of the Israeli state with religious doctrine, such rhetoric risks instrumentalizing Judaism to justify war and occupation. The consequence of this interpretation is the transformation of a political conflict into a civilizational and identity-based struggle — a shift that broadens the scope of crisis and reduces prospects for compromise.
The Peace Council: Humanitarian Initiative or Security Engineering?
Simultaneously, Trump introduced a proposal branded as a “Peace Council” for the reconstruction of Gaza, accompanied by promises of substantial financial assistance. Yet the parallel emergence of these two narratives raises pressing strategic questions: How can peace be championed while maximalist territorial claims are implicitly validated?
The Peace Council may function less as a purely humanitarian project and more as a mechanism to achieve objectives unmet on the battlefield — including the disarmament of resistance groups and a restructuring of Gaza’s security balance. Within this framework, economic reconstruction could serve as leverage to reshape the political and security architecture of Palestine.
Huckabee’s remarks, therefore, may not represent a diplomatic misstep, but rather an early and candid articulation of the geopolitical underpinnings of the initiative.
The “New Middle East”: Reproducing a Dependent Order
Claims of regional supremacy align with a broader project long framed under the banner of a “New Middle East” — an order structured around Israel’s security primacy and the centrality of U.S. strategic interests. Indicators of this approach are visible in efforts to disarm resistance actors, recalibrate military deployments in Syria, exert political pressure on Iraq, and intensify measures against Iran.
This paradigm rests on three pillars: the management and perpetuation of crisis, the erosion of national defensive capacities, and the fragmentation of state structures. Security, in this model, is not the outcome of regional cooperation but of containment and dependency.
The ambassador’s remarks can thus be interpreted as a rare moment of strategic transparency — one that underscores a vision of the region as a theater of prolonged attrition rather than sustainable stability.
The Risk of Miscalculation and the Imperative of Regional Convergence
Alongside Huckabee, figures such as Lindsey Graham are widely recognized as staunch advocates of pro-Israel policies and hold influence within Trump’s decision-making circle. The presence of such voices increases the likelihood of strategic miscalculation — particularly regarding Iran.
A large-scale confrontation would not only destabilize the region but also jeopardize American interests and global standing. In response to what critics describe as a project of regional “de-defensification” under the banner of security, West Asian states face a strategic choice: pursue convergence around the Palestinian issue and construct a region-centered order grounded in sovereignty, deterrence, and endogenous cooperation.
Only through such an approach, proponents argue, can the region avoid becoming the testing ground for an “American Middle East” shaped by asymmetric power and structural dependency.
