Statements by the U.S. ambassador in the occupied territories asserting Israel’s right to control a geography described as “from the Nile to the Euphrates” cannot be dismissed as merely personal or emotional views. These remarks were made within an ideological framework that seeks to redefine political Zionism through a religious interpretation. By selectively citing religious texts, this approach attempts to legitimize territorial expansionism.
While a segment of Jews worldwide does not necessarily regard the existence of the Zionist regime as synonymous with religious teachings, positions of this kind turn Judaism into a tool for justifying war and occupation. The consequence of such an interpretation is the shift of the conflict from a political level to an identity-based and civilizational level—an outcome that broadens the scope of the crisis and reduces the possibility of compromise.
Peace Council: Humanitarian Initiative or Security Engineering?
At the same time, Trump unveiled a plan titled the Gaza Peace Council for the reconstruction of Gaza, a proposal accompanied by promises of extensive financial assistance. Yet the simultaneous emergence of these two approaches raises strategic questions: How can peace be advocated while, at the same time, maximalist territorial expansion is treated as legitimate?
Rather than a humanitarian project, the Peace Council may serve as an instrument for achieving objectives that were not realized on the military battlefield—including the disarmament of resistance groups and a shift in Gaza’s security balance. Within this framework, economic reconstruction could become leverage for reshaping the political and security structure of Palestine. Huckabee’s remarks, therefore, may be interpreted not as a diplomatic misstep but as an early admission of the council’s geopolitical nature.
A “New Middle East”: Reproducing a Dependent Order
The claim of a regional right to dominance can be analyzed as part of the same project long discussed under the title of a “New Middle East”—an order in which Israel’s security superiority and U.S. interests form the basis for organizing regional equations. Signs of this approach can be seen in pressure to disarm resistance actors, efforts to alter the military balance in Syria, political pressure on Iraq, and intensified actions against Iran.
This framework rests on three pillars: the continuous creation of crises, the weakening of countries’ defensive capabilities, and the fragmentation of national structures. In such a model, security is defined not as the product of regional cooperation but as the result of containment and dependency. The U.S. ambassador’s statements can be seen as a clear articulation of this strategy—a strategy that risks turning the region into a theater of prolonged competition.
Risk of Miscalculation and Need for Regional Convergence
Alongside Huckabee, figures such as Lindsey Graham are known as strong supporters of pro-Zionist policies and as influential voices in Trump’s decision-making circle. The presence of such currents around the U.S. president increases the likelihood of miscalculation, particularly with regard to Iran.
Any large-scale confrontation would threaten not only the region but also U.S. interests and its global standing. For this reason, in response to a project of regional disarmament presented under the banner of security, the strategic option for West Asian countries is convergence around the Palestinian issue and the design of a region-centered order—an order based on independence, deterrence, and endogenous cooperation. Only through such an approach can the region avoid becoming a stage for the realization of an “American Middle East.”
NOURNEWS