America's grip has become weak in the face of the new equations in the region

Monopolizing hegemony over the region as an area of ​​American influence in the framework of the struggle for global influence with other major powers is what has characterized the foreign policy of the United States over the past decades, despite a number of challenges, as the Russians were able to penetrate this influence in some previous periods of time in a number of countries. Such as Syria, Iraq, South Yemen, Libya, Algeria and Egypt in a specific period.

Russian influence is expanding today, not only in those countries, even after the changes that took place in them with varying causes and results, and in a way that was compatible with the American vision for building the new Middle East, which they talked about a quarter of a century ago.

Now, the Russian role is expanding due to the failure of the objectives of the so-called Arab Spring, specifically in Syria, and the plans for the new Middle East that was being planned under the leadership of the occupying power, in addition to the movement of the changes taking place in the international system, not only in those countries that were considered allies of the former Soviet Union, but also in New Arab countries were counted entirely on the Western camp. There are also countries that have succeeded in getting out of the sphere of American influence, such as Iran after the revolution, which today has become a player not only in the Middle East, but also in the international level of the existing conflict and imposes its conditions in the course of negotiations regarding its nuclear file, as happened during the past two days of reaching an agreement. The framework of an agreement and the release of part of the Iranian money withheld, and what it has acquired from the capabilities of military industrialization and as part of new alliances that impose positions on regional and international balances.

Also, despite its membership in NATO, Turkey is the executive tool for the expansionist foreign policies of the United States, but it has now adopted a somewhat independent policy, and it has succeeded, especially in the past two decades, in limiting the tools of American and Western influence on it after its success in developing its economic and military capabilities and its international relations. Specifically with Russia and its emergence as a major regional player that maintains its interests despite what we agree or disagree with this country, especially regarding its dreams of restoring the glories of its empire.

This is in addition to what we are witnessing today of the clarity of the Saudi vision of its role and its impact on the positions of a number of Gulf countries, and its desire for Arab reunification, which has brought matters closer to the United States in a different way from what relations were previously, and is now reading emerging international equations wisely and dealing with With it on the basis of its supposed weight, which prompts the Americans to realize that Saudi Arabia is well accommodating the next stage in the world, and the American administration has become afraid of a new positioning of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that puts it against the Western camp.

It should also be noted that, in the last decade, the Americans have given greater priority to confronting the Chinese rise, to competing across the Pacific Ocean, and also to confronting Russia, especially in the Eurasian region, to prevent its further expansion and in order to stop the steps of transformation towards the multipolar international system, and for this reason its war was fabricated by proxy. Against Russia in Ukraine, as well as weakening the independent European role so that it remains in the American orbit, which is witnessing great opposition from the peoples of the European continent.

This may have weakened in a limited way the degree of American focus on the Middle East, but it did not affect the essence of the same policy that the United States desires to continue, in which the region and its people have taken to wars and destruction. On the conflict and maintain hotbeds of tension so that it remains able to impose the role of the occupying power with the equations it wants in the region.

However, on the other hand, it seems that the United States has become aware of the reality of the new positions and policies in our region, especially with a deep crisis taking place in Israeli society, the exposure of the apartheid regime in it, and the widespread criticism of that by American public opinion and by progressive and even Jewish circles in America. It has also become aware of the approaches that have come to distinguish Its relations with many Arab countries are no longer what they were in the past when the American administrations dictated what they wanted from them.

In front of that, there are changes in the US policy, linked to the policies, procedures and tools that it uses in taking care of its interests and enforcing the constants of its policies. Here, a group of factors related to intellectual political backgrounds and tendencies intervene, especially with different idealistic and realistic concepts in managing their policies and culture for the American president and his ruling team, American economic conditions, which are in a deep crisis today, globalization, the degree of feeling external risks, and dealing with international competition and major powers, especially China, Russia, and a number of coalition countries. The other "BRICS" and the countries of the Latin continent and their political, military and economic behavior that may affect American interests or crowd them out in their spheres of influence.

However, the United States, in my opinion, has returned to our region from another angle of vision represented yesterday by the joint statement issued by the meeting of the foreign ministers of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries with the American Secretary Blinken, who was forced to make a U-turn on the previous American positions, especially regarding the positions on Syria, Yemen, and the agreement. The Saudi-Iranian also has nothing to do with the borders of the two-state solution that the statement referred to yesterday.

It is clear that Saudi Arabia adheres to the Arab initiative and the two-state solution based on the 1967 borders and not to be dragged into normalization relations with the occupying state without a price and without resolving the Palestinian issue first, as stated by its foreign minister, in addition to its insistence on reducing oil production and not yielding to the American vision regarding that and with regard to Russia's membership in OPEC Moreover, the expansion of relations with China has prompted the Americans to turn around and review their positions.
However, the margin of change in American policy towards the Middle East remains, in my opinion, limited in the way of managing the constants, foremost of which is the protection of the Israeli colonial state on the one hand, and the tactical and flexible dealing with developments on the other hand, in a way that serves its interests in an attempt to thwart the transition to a multipolar international system. In any case, it will not stand by our Palestinian people against the Israeli occupation, but it may deal with realism and pragmatism when people succeed in imposing their will, or when things do not go in their interest. However, it quickly repositions itself to serve the implementation of its policy through the support of what is left of its "allies", or by various means of failure and overthrow to re-adjust the political system in accordance with its interest.
But countries and their peoples, when they make up their minds and insist on achieving their independence, are able to impose their will and follow the paths of their renaissance, whether they like America or hate it.