��������

US envoy Tom Barrack and his colleague Morgan Ortagus on Tuesday visited Lebanon on the heels of some significant developments on both the Syrian and Lebanese fronts. Their trip also came in the wake of the UN’s announcement that the Gaza Strip is now experiencing a famine.

For months now, as we well know, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has, along with his ministers and generals, openly defied dozens of internationally documented reports by political and humanitarian organizations that have been monitoring the situation in Gaza and are aware of the genocide being committed before the eyes of the world.

And, as we also know, instead of taking a firm position and refusing to tolerate these crimes, the international community has chosen a different path altogether. If this inaction tells us anything, it is that the old-new reality in international politics regarding the Middle East has consolidated. It is old because near-unconditional international support for Israel is not new, but it has intensified repeatedly, especially since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the former Soviet Union, which left the US leading the “new world order,” as still does today.

I have little doubt that the two envoys have been tasked with laying the ground for new realities in the Eastern Mediterranean

Eyad Abu Shakra

It is new because US hegemony over this “new world order” has redefined many principles, terminologies and political priorities with regard to the Middle East, introducing new standards and concepts that now underpin its regional strategies.

Take, for example, the removal of Zionism’s classification as a form of racism in the global discourse. This shift evolved further, so much so that any criticism of any Israeli government is now branded as outright “antisemitism,” which can be punished politically and, in some contexts, legally.

Similarly, subjective terms like “terrorism” and “counterterrorism” have been redefined in ways that justify conflict, invasion, the toppling of governments and, in some cases, the redrawing of borders.

The post-Cold War era saw several states reshaped, even in Europe. Strategic doctrines were reformulated around the new interests of the victorious powers and concepts like human rights, nationalism and minority protection were redefined.

This process began in Europe itself. The collapse of the Soviet Union split a single federal state into 15 independent republics. The logic of division also spread to Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. Western European entities, by contrast, managed to withstand their chronic separatist inclinations, with West Germany (the Federal Republic) even successfully reintegrating its former communist eastern provinces.

Across Asia and Africa, we witnessed similar shifts: the partition of Sudan, the secession of East Timor from Indonesia and the near-partition of Iraq after the 2003 invasion — this was averted only by a tangled web of competing interests, not least Turkiye’s uncompromising opposition to Kurdish independence.

Back to Barrack and Ortagus…

I have little doubt that the two envoys have been tasked with laying the ground for new realities in the Eastern Mediterranean suited to both Israel’s priorities and American strategic interests — though we should note that, of course, the two were never truly at odds in the first place.

Larijani’s visit has effectively turned back the clock, keeping the doors wide open for potential security surprises

Eyad Abu Shakra

More accurately, this effort aims to impose a shared US-Israeli vision for the geopolitical environment around Israel. This objective was made possible by the stark imbalance of power and a convergence of other factors that all serve Israel’s hegemonic ambitions. Do we still remember the phrase “peace … a strategic option,” which we Arabs were, for so many years, the only regional actors naive enough to believe?

It is now clearer than ever that Israel never believed in it. It does not believe in it today and it will not believe in it at any point in the foreseeable future. Its ongoing massacres and systematic displacement in Gaza, combined with its expanding security and intelligence operations in Lebanon and Syria, make that abundantly evident.

Meanwhile, Turkiye believes it has secured a major strategic victory on its southern doorstep, tightening its grip on Syria following Iran’s withdrawal, thanks to the arrangements it had with both Tel Aviv and Washington. This “tactical” Turkish victory, in my view, is real. However, sustaining it demands a long-term strategy, attention to detail, accurate calculations and avoiding needless enmity, as there are neither absolute mandates nor permanent alliances.

And so, as the US envoys arrived in Lebanon, the Lebanese authorities awaited their arrival against the backdrop of Hezbollah’s brinkmanship as it seeks to avoid surrendering its arms to the state.

That is the crux of Lebanon’s predicament: although some members of the Hezbollah top brass have long recognized the need to cut their losses and allow the state some margin for maneuver, the recent visit of senior Iranian security official Ali Larijani has effectively turned back the clock, keeping the doors wide open for potential security surprises.

The problem is that the conditions today, both domestic and regionally, make it difficult for Lebanon to withstand any surprises.

• Eyad Abu Shakra is managing editor of Asharq Al-Awsat, where this article was originally published. X: @eyad1949