The Struggle for Influence... and the Shifting Rules of Engagement

What is happening in the Middle East is not an existential conflict between powers seeking to eliminate each other, but rather a struggle to manage the balance of power, governed by unannounced rules of engagement that are reviewed and adjusted whenever strategic interests dictate. Escalation and de-escalation, war and truce, are not ends in themselves, but rather tools to redraw the boundaries of influence and prevent any imbalance in the power dynamic that could lead to the dominance of one party. The experiences of past decades have proven that major and regional powers, no matter how intense the confrontation between them, understand the red lines that should not be crossed. Conflict is managed more than it is resolved, and its rhythms are controlled to prevent a comprehensive explosion that could spiral out of control and threaten everyone's interests. Therefore, the rules of engagement change whenever field realities change or political priorities shift, and the goal remains to maintain a balance that allows for the continuation of influence, not its termination. Amidst this equation, the Arab region transforms into the main theater for this conflict. It is not the maker of the game's rules, but often its arena, most affected by its outcomes. Prolonged crises, recurring wars, and sharp polarizations keep the Arab world preoccupied with managing its internal crises, limiting its ability to build an independent political, economic, or security project. Hence, the real danger does not lie in the victory of this or that axis, but in the continued absence of an Arab actor capable of producing a common strategic vision. When the Arab project is absent, the available option becomes reliance on this or that party, instead of Arabs being an independent party in the regional and international balance equation. The region does not need to align itself in the struggle for influence, as much as it needs to redefine its interests and formulate its own project. Countries that do not make the rules of the game will remain governed by rules set by others, and will pay the price from their security, stability, and development. Perhaps the most bitter truth is that the ongoing conflict is not for the region, but over it. Unless Arabs possess political will and a unified strategic vision, they will remain an arena for the division of influence, not partners in its creation, and one side of the millstone will never be a substitute for an independent Arab project that creates balance, protects interests, and restores Arabs to their position as an actor, not an object.