Mohammed bin Salman and the map of the new Middle East

In today's world, there are no longer isolated islands that do not influence or are affected by developments occurring at the global level.

In a previous time, there were attempts at something like this, and they had names, frameworks, and policies such as “non-alignment,” “neutral entities,” and “positive neutrality.” Although many countries adopted these terms, from which institutions and frameworks emerged, they all dissolved in the midst of the conflicts and rivalries of the great powers that were produced and perpetuated by the conclusions of World War II. Countries fleeing the polarizations imposed by the Cold War and heirs to the hot war were merely projects for use, also under the labels Different.

Our era, in which we now live, embodies an inevitable state of vulnerability and influence, which includes all existing entities, regardless of their sizes, capabilities, and locations on the map of the planet.

The idea of the New Middle East... emerged from the need to transform this vast region, rich in potential, and with a dangerous geographical location, from an active breeding ground for producing disturbances, wars and permanent threats to the international interests gathered in it, into a safer and more stable place for its residents first, and for everyone who has interests in it, and Prince Mohammed bin Salman had the merit of proposing the idea and working to implement it.

What makes it a viable idea and not just a desire or a dream is that its material capabilities are available, and shifting the compass from indicators of fighting and rivalry to indicators of cooperation, integration and development is something that countries have no choice but to acknowledge and compete to serve their interests through.

The beginning was sound and effective, with the title “Start with yourself, your state, and your people first.” The changes that were close to being radical began within the Kingdom, and then there was the diligent move toward a “zero problems” policy with the immediate and distant surroundings, and protecting this “radical” newness with a space of independence in Drawing policies and building relationships, without clashing with the interests of countries, but by modifying their paths from an old one that was based on the intense struggle over influence and its exclusivity, to a new one in which the leaders of the old conflicts see their interests; And even less expensive.

In terms of material capabilities, the idea of a new Middle East, close even to neighboring Europe, seems possible as a realistic goal provided that the policies are implemented in an efficient manner, and in such a way that no party with interests in the region feels that it needs to spend on protecting and expanding its influence, many times more than the advantages it gains from it. What cooperation is available to him with others.

This will not be an easy, mechanical work guaranteed by desires and positive trends. Rather, it requires a lot of persistent work, and the policies that Saudi Arabia is implementing towards the hotbeds of tension in the region and the world have become an indispensable necessity for progress towards the final goal, and because Europe is the geographical and historical twin of the Middle East, a solution The dilemma at its heart is similar to the radical solution to the most productive generator of unrest in the heart of the Middle East, which is the “Palestinian issue.” If the Saudi initiative, which turned into an Arab and Islamic one to resolve the dispute over it, was put forward early, then those who did not enable it to act must regret the time they wasted and the potential they wasted as a result of ignoring it.

Although there is no place in politics for the letter “if,” it does no harm in using it to indicate a mistake. If Israel had accepted it as a basis for a solution, we and the region would have been in a better condition.

Just as Europe is the twin of the Middle East, the Ukrainian-Russian war is the twin of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and in a time of direct contact between issues, any progress on either of them carries objective progress on the other, and I am not exaggerating if I say that the older Middle Eastern twin has the elements. More than in Ukraine, this is not the result of a theoretical approach; Rather, it is due to the size of the forces directly involved in Ukraine, which is... the entire world.

In the new Middle East, Saudi Arabia has more serious influence than others, and the new map that is hoped for is not the one that Benjamin Netanyahu presented to the United Nations General Assembly. The difference is fundamental. This is because the Saudi map that Prince Mohammed bin Salman proposes without haste to announce in colours, is placed in its geographical, political and entity terrain, “Palestine”, which was completely absent from Netanyahu’s map, and there is a difference between propaganda work needed by the public relations game, and real serious work needed by the region, its peoples and the world. .

This is what is embodied by the Saudi map that is about to be drawn on the ground, and not in the space of propaganda and analysis.