Adnan Boynukara
Once again the Middle East is on the brink of a major geopolitical rupture. The war launched by the United States and Israel against Iran may at first glance appear to be the result of a security crisis between two sides. However, developments indicate that this conflict is not merely an operation aimed at limiting Iran’s military capacity, but an attempt to reshape the political and security architecture of the Middle East. First of all, it should be noted that for the U.S.–Israel alliance, the main issue is how the political and security architecture of the Middle East will be shaped.
The crises occurring across a wide geography, from Iraq to Syria, from Gaza to Lebanon, from Yemen to the Red Sea, have made the instability of the regional system more visible. However, these crises also carry signs of a search for a new order. The war against Iran is one of the most critical stages of this search. The emerging picture shows that the war is shaped around two main strategic objectives. The first is to bring about regime change in Iran or to enable a political transformation compatible with the West. The second, and more important objective, is to redesign the new security architecture of the Middle East around an Israel-centered axis.
The Strategy of Regime Change and the Politics of Hegemony
After the Cold War, the role undertaken by the United States in the international system was largely shaped by its pursuit of global hegemony. This hegemony was constructed not only through military superiority but also through the capacity to establish political order. The military interventions carried out by the United States over the past thirty years have been an important part of this strategy. When the interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya are examined, it becomes clear that these occupations were not aimed solely at eliminating security threats. The real objective was to transform the political systems of these countries. For this reason, regime-change strategies have become one of the most controversial tools of the United States’ efforts to shape the global order.
The traces left by these interventions remain vivid in the collective memory of the peoples of the Middle East. The collapse of the state after the invasion of Iraq, the social devastation caused by the long war in Afghanistan, the political fragmentation in Libya, the killing of millions of people in Syria, the occupation of Gaza, and the civil war in Yemen have all shown how unpredictable the consequences of external interventions can be. For this reason, for the peoples of the region, the discourse of external intervention is not merely a strategic debate but also a reminder of a historical trauma.
In the post–Cold War period, the security order established in the Middle East largely depended on the U.S. military presence. However, in recent years Washington’s tendency to reduce its military burden in the region has also brought about a search for a new security architecture. In this new model, the United States prefers to project power through regional allies rather than through direct intervention. Instead of direct military involvement in the region, Washington now prefers to conduct its regional strategy largely through its strategic partner, Israel.
This transformation is giving rise to a new strategic model that redefines the balance of power in the Middle East. Through the strong strategic and ideological alliance it has established with Israel (including evangelical influence), the United States is trying to place Tel Aviv at the center of the Middle East’s security architecture. This process signifies both the strengthening of Israel and the structuring of the regional security system designed by the US around Israel. The fundamental aim of the new security architecture designed by Washington is to prevent the emergence of an independent political axis in the Middle East outside Western control. This is because models of strategic cooperation that could develop among the countries of the region might limit the influence of global powers over the region. For this reason, the possibility of any independent security order emerging in the Middle East is seen as a risk for the current hegemonic system.
The most fundamental problem with this security architecture that the United States seeks to impose on the countries and peoples of the region is the issue of legitimacy. Throughout history, systems that rely solely on military power balances without producing the consent of the peoples of the region have not been able to endure. The recent history of the Middle East has repeatedly shown how fragile such imposed security systems can be.
The Problem of Regional Security and Cooperation in the Middle East
The attempt to build an Israel-centered security architecture is a design for an externally driven order that is not compatible with the political realities of the Middle East. Such a project cannot produce lasting stability. This is because the security of the Middle East can be shaped not by the military plans of external powers but by the political will of the societies of the region. The modern political history of the Middle East shows that one of the region’s most fundamental problems is the lack of regional autonomy. The states of the region have often failed to develop a common political vision due to rivalries among themselves, ideological divisions, and geopolitical vulnerabilities. This situation has continually increased the influence of external powers over the region.
If the countries of the region cannot establish a sound basis for cooperation among themselves, once again the future of the Middle East will be determined by the strategic calculations of external actors. This situation is not merely a diplomatic weakness but a structural fragility that makes the region vulnerable to external interventions. Many crises in the Middle East are largely exacerbated by the fact that this political fragmentation has been turned into a geopolitical opportunity by global powers. Therefore, many issues, from energy pipelines and migration movements to security threats and economic dependencies, have ceased to be problems that states can solve alone. The lack of regional cooperation is not only a diplomatic issue but also a structural problem that deepens political fragmentation and facilitates external interventions.
Some initiatives that have emerged in recent years -for example, the pursuit of regional economic cooperation, energy corridors, or security dialogue initiatives- show signs of a limited but noticeable search for regional autonomy in the Middle East. However, these initiatives have not yet been able to evolve into an institutional security architecture. Therefore, the future of the Middle East largely depends on this question: Can the region generate its own political intelligence and create an alternative to externally imposed security projects? If this is not possible, the security architecture of the Middle East will continue to be shaped not by the will of the region’s societies, but by the strategic calculations of external powers. Therefore, the future of the Middle East will largely depend on whether the actors in the region can develop a common strategic vision.
An Israel-centered security architecture project cannot bring peace to the Middle East. Such an order would create an asymmetric power structure based on military superiority rather than producing regional stability. The shaping of the regional order around a single military power would create a structure that eliminates the strategic autonomy of other regional actors and generates lasting tensions by disrupting the balance of power. Although this situation may produce certain advantages in the short term, in the long run it will pave the way for new tensions. The Middle East is a complex political geography where strong identities, religious sensitivities, and deep social memories are intertwined. When this reality is ignored, every order built on military superiority tends to produce new forms of resistance and new crises after a short period of time.
Can the Middle East Establish Its Own Order?
The biggest problem facing the Middle East today is not so much a lack of security, but a lack of political vision. As long as the countries of the region cannot develop a common strategic perspective, security projects designed by external powers will continue to determine the fate of the Middle East. Yet what the region needs is not new military blocs or security projects designed by external powers, but a new vision of cooperation through which regional actors can generate their own political reasoning.
This political framework can be built upon three fundamental principles. The first is regional sovereignty. The security of the Middle East should be ensured not through interventions by external powers, but through the shared responsibility and political will of the regional actors. The second is security cooperation. Without overcoming the lack of trust among regional countries, it will be difficult to establish a regional security architecture. The third is the principle of strategic balance. The regional order should be built not on the hegemonic superiority of a single country but on a balance of power and mutual interdependence. A regional cooperation model developed in line with these principles could offer an important opportunity to overcome the chronic crises of the Middle East. Otherwise, the security of the Middle East will be shaped according to the strategic priorities of global powers.
The fundamental problem of the Middle East is not military superiority but the capacity to establish order. If a common strategic vision cannot be developed, the fate of the region will be determined by the United States and its occupying ally. However, if regional actors can demonstrate the willpower to establish their own security architecture, the Middle East could become not only a center of crises but also the center of a search for a new political order.