Washington’s Next “Holocaust” Plan in the Middle East 

By Siwar Ftaimia: Department of International Relations and Strategic Affairs 18/07/2024  

Introduction:

The Middle East, a richly unique region of strategic significance without parallel. This is why it has been a matter of dispute for global powers for just as long. Therefore, pushing the Middle East always was in the strategic interests of the United States.

For many decades, Washington’s policies, driven by a mix of strategic interests and geopolitical calculations, have often led to just such catastrophic consequences for the populations of the region.

Many of its critics argue that these policies are not only amounting to a “Holocaust” for these communities but also the wider suffering and devastation that follow.

Terrorism combined with these policies and the silencing of uprisings for democracy and human rights has resulted in this mix of U.S policies creating this disparity in power so much in favor of the allies over the adversaries and now into even a new world structure that is described as created, with disputes ongoing, by the rising of China and Russia.

U.S-Israel Relationship and its Implications

The geopolitics of the Middle East is shaped significantly by the alliance of the U.S and Israel and by historical events, as much as by the annals of World War II.

The post-World War II intentions of the rest of the world to ameliorate Jewish people’s suffering found a timely and strong patron in the United States, which played a key role in the formation of the state of Israel.

In that sense, Israel was born a “democratic outpost” in the Middle East, often called a “little America” because it identified with and supported U.S interests and values.

Over the years, the alliance has matured, and real military aid from America is matched by genuine political support extended to Israel, believed to be of significance so far as regional stability, from the point of view of the United States, is concerned, and also for the military strategic interests of America in the Middle East. However, the alliance has also fomented controversy, especially in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Thanks to its support, the international community criticizes its defense while Israelis carry out military operations and settlements – one humanitarian crisis after the other, hence easing any effort to establish a durable peace in the region once and for all.

Regarding the U.S policy, since World War II, it was and still remains to-date to nurture and maintain Israel as a strategic ally in the Middle East echoing American values and interests in position.

U.S Influence and Regional Disparity

Middle Eastern countries serve as a stark contrast between those that benefit from the amicable relationship with the United States and those being exposed to the adversities of being in enmity.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates all continue to move forward full steam because of alliances with the U.S gaining economic prosperity, political stability, and huge military backup.

Such countries utilize their strategic partnerships to conduct huge development projects and affirm their regional influence.

In the meantime, countries that the U.S considers its enemies, such as Iran or Syria, have also been victimized with hard-hitting economic sanctions and military strikes, not to mention inducing aggression and internal destabilization.

The political and economic stresses imposed by the U.S heel have driven such countries into a tailspin of crisis—a recipe for suffering and turmoil.

This tells how bad the situation has been under foreign intervention exhibited in countries like Yemen, ranked to have the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, going by the ongoing conflict—worsened by foreign intervention.

Sudan is a case in point for the complex effects that American policies have. The country has been plagued for long by internal conflict, economic hardship, and political instability, and as such, it has been a focal point in terms of international intervention.

The U.S sanctions, applied in the hope of pressuring this regime on human rights abuses and support for terrorism, have severely hurt the Sudanese economy and affected the daily life of its people.

Even with this backpedaling diplomacy and some reversal of sanctions, the ugly issues about the continuation of conflict in Darfur and other regions only serve to underline that there are limitations of unwanted by-products from American policies.

The reasons underlying the strategic importance of the Middle East to global powers are its vast oil and gas fields, prime geostrategic location and the control of critical global trade routes.

Access and control over the region are seen as means to withstand or meet energy needs, geopolitical clout, and global trade networks by the U.S and other global powers.

The Use of “Terrorism as a Strategic Tool

The U.S has a long-precedent use history of terrorism as a strategic state-policy tool for furthering the realization of U.S interests within the precincts of the Middle East.

For instance, for much of the Cold War and beyond, the U.S supported plenty of groups, including al-Qaeda, ISIS, and the Taliban, with the hope of challenging adversarial forces within this region and/or trying to ensure that forces favorable to the United States were able to hold on and stay in power within countries.

This policy has often entailed the financial, military, and logistical support of such groups that would seek to destabilize countries perceived to be in a state of belligerence to the country’s interests.

The events of September 11, 2001, were a tragic turning point in the objectives of foreign policy by the U.S What followed the War on Terror resulted in an invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. Such interventions, justified as preventing terrorism, have precipitated protracted engagement, destabilization, and massive losses in terms of human capital.

Since the eventual rise of ISIS after the invasion, dimensional changes in the region have further made situations deeply violent and led to dislocation of people.

The Arab Spring, which began in 2010, and culminated in a wave of uprising and revolution in the Middle East and North Africa.

Although, at its onset, it seemed to bring about democratic reforms, it significantly brought in more instability, might I say, to countries like Syria and Libya. The civil war that followed in Syria has been devastating; the Assad regime, in clench with Russia, fights against various rebel groups, some of which have received backing by the U.S The disorder allowed terrorist organizations to reproduce it, leading to a telluric circle of violence and instability.

The U.S trying to enforce the system of democracy upon them by applying force only increased the chaos, leading to drastic effects and actually interfering with the democratic values it was trying to espouse.

Shifting Global Power Dynamics

That is, the unipolar moment of the U.S is giving way to a multipolar world, in which China and Russia are emerging as major players in the Middle East.

China, through its Belt and Road Initiative, has made deep inroads into the Middle East, where it has economic partnerships and major infrastructure projects promising to transform the economic landscape. Starting from ports in Oman to energy deals in Iran, Chinese influence is on the rise to challenge the United States.

Russia, for its part, has declared its military presence more prominently through intervention in Syria. In giving new life to the Assad regime, Russia was able to gain a strategic foot in the Mediterranean and signal its capacity of resistance against U.S policies. Importantly, the rising power collaboration between China and Russia in the Middle East will deliver a new challenge for U.S interests and strategies in the global power dynamic.

It is not overstating the strategic significance of the Middle East in this broader global power play. Of energy resources, key trade routes, and regional influence, the Middle East is proved to be very important to remain in global dominance.

The U.S must therefore navigate these shifting dynamics, balancing both its traditional strategies with new approaches to counter the growing influence of China and Russia.

Current Events and Policy Trend

Annual growth in Gaza violence after October 7, 2023, along with fresh developments on the ground, have breathed new life into the Middle East.

The humanitarian crisis and geopolitical consequences demand a reconsideration by the U.S of how it operates in the region.

If ever there is a time this crisis has showcased the differentiated approach linked to strategic interests and the issues of human rights, it is now.

One of the most controversial issues now in American politics is the policy toward Iran. America is still on a quest to destabilize Iran, using allegations of nuclear ambition and regional influence as the excuses. Further, the stakes were increased when certain groups in the U.S accused Iran of complicity in the assassination plot against ex-President Donald Trump.

Even though these charges are controversial and disputed, they have led to calls for more sanctions and even attacks on Iran.

Trends in the U.S policy point to a potential for re-alignment with a more focused diplomatic and multilateral course. Yet, the long-time influence of the military-industrial interest and its regional allies still strongly put the shades and contours of U.S strategy.

As it seeks to find its way forward, the United States must do so within a changed geopolitics environment in which China and Russia are more ably positioned.

CONCLUSION:

Though it has been able to wield its superiority over the Middle East for decades, the region continues to be stung sorely by the policies of America. Its strategic relationship with Israel proceeds to aggravate regional animosities. While its friends flourish, its enemies are destroyed. And, absurdly, the U.S has no interest to turn down the implicatory approach despite the calamitous aftermaths. With the rise of China and Russia, the U.S must adapt to an emerging world order and pursue policies truly respective of stability and peace rather than merely being helpful in maintaining cycles of violence and disparity.

But, as the example of Sudan shows, such activities do lead to some consequences and pose challenges. It is therefore necessary to work on resuming the human and ethical components of foreign policies. A Middle East restored by peaceful means would do much to remove the shadows of the wars from which it emerged. After all, the U.S policies are fanning anti-American sympathies, and sooner or later, these antagonisms will result in catastrophes from which the U.S is not immune. Consequently, the policies need to be re-evaluated with the aim of eliminating belligerence and ensuring peace is attained in infinite terms.