The definitive rise of Iran as a major regional power in the Middle East, after its deterrent blow against Israel, is but the latest of many evidences of the fiasco of American foreign policy towards that region. The formation of a New Middle Easthas failed.
At the beginning of this century, the then president of the United States, George W. Bush, would have to make a bold and controversial decision regarding his policy towards the Middle East. He would have to choose between Iran and Saudi Arabia, two of the regional oil giants. Choose who he would be a friend of and who an enemy. Whom he would have as an ally and who would he make war on.
Beyond the clear differences between Riyadh and Tehran, one Arab and the other Persian, one with a Sunni Wahhabi Islamic tendency and the other Shiite Islamic, both shared something very negative for the United States: being enemies of Israel, Washington’s main ally in the region, its main recipient of weapons and connected to a powerful lobband, who is said to have the power to remove and replace the tenant of the White House.
It was not, no, an easy task, from the political standards of the United States both countries were excludable, both had systems of government contrary to the democratic tenets of the West, religious beliefs, omnipresent in both systems, guided the lives of non-citizens. always to the most convenient places for Washington. His studies indicated that the rights of women and minorities were not respected.
Those from the south were immediately identified with armed groups such as Al Qaeda or the Palestinian resistance Hamas, and those from the north were immediately identified as being behind the Lebanese resistance led by Hezbollah (Party of God) or the Houthi movement Ansar Allah (Partisans of God) in Yemen.
Internal pressures within the United States, much greater after the bloody attacks of September 11, 2001, led W. Bush to outline an aggressive policy towards the Middle East, whose primary objective was to forever change the region and make it more similar. to the West.
Bush would define his objectives very clearly: Combat terrorism, which meant war and death for the region. Promote Democracy, that is, soft coups and color revolutions. Combat the proliferation of weapons of mass extermination, the justification with which they attacked Iraq and at the very least, allowed a medieval, public execution of its president Saddam Hussein and which was also reflected in the tight control over Iran for an alleged interest of the Persians in obtaining nuclear weapons.
As part of the “fight against terrorism,” Washington took war to Iraq and Afghanistan. He sought for this unsustainable justifications over time that cost dearly the credibility and ethics of established figures in Anglo-Saxon politics such as Colin Powell, while color revolutions emerged “spontaneously” in several Middle Eastern countries, such as Egypt and Tunisia.
Finally, as part of that New Middle East and in a “noble purpose”, the United States was considering solving what it considered the main problem of the region: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, betting on a two-state solution, but it has just shown us that of the two, only one is interested, since that same United States has just vetoed alone the creation of a Palestinian state in the UN, very recently
Of course, facing this complex agenda of regional change would initially require defining “those who are with me and those who are against me.” George W. Bush would make this very clear when during a visit in April 2002 by King Abdullah, then leader of the House of Saud of Saudi Arabia, to the Crawford Ranch in Texas, both leaders walked hand in hand in a sign of indissoluble union.
But a lot has rained since then. To achieve that New Middle East that Bush wanted, they launched Israel against Lebanon in 2006, an adventure that ended in a resounding failure for the Zionists, they would plunge Syria and Yemen into bloody wars, they would sign a nuclear pact with Iran with Obama in the White House that Trump would break months later and In a clear violation of the red lines, they would assassinate Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in 2020 in an evident revival of selective assassinations and finally, they would hit the Iranian consulate in Damascus, massacring those present there.
Iran would respond. Everyone knew it. It remained to be seen how and when. It remained to be seen if, despite years of Western sanctions and import limitations, Tehran had managed to develop its military technology to a point that would allow it to punish Israel for its affront, but this article is not where you will find an analysis with the amount of missiles that Tehran fired, how many arrived and how many did not. What level of destruction did they cause, no. The greatest impact of Iran’s response to Israel is not military, it is political and will be long-lasting
More than a rocket, Tehran delivered a coup of authority. As its missiles and drones traveled on their way to Israel, celebrations emerged in several Middle Eastern countries, regardless of several of the region’s governments politically condemning the response. Iran suddenly became the most direct punisher of Israel for its genocide in Gaza and the resistance movements it is said to sponsor. Hezbollah and Ansar Allahthe most active against Zionism in solidarity with Palestine, while other regional powers have preferred not to go beyond condemnation.
With this response, which undoubtedly put the world on the brink of a major conflagration, Iran ignores the confessional differences that have marked relations between the countries of the Middle East and through which the West has managed to turn that conflict into a perennial and favor their interests and those of Israel. With this response, Iran becomes the leader of the anti-Zionist resistance and the most pro-Palestinian of all Palestine’s neighbors.
Regardless of what the West says, Iran has responded within the law and in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, it directed its missiles at military sites, it did not need to hit a city in Israel and kill hundreds of civilians. to restore deterrence, while Israel, with its provocative coup against the Iranian Consulate in Damascus, clearly violated the Vienna Convention, which adds to the indiscriminate killing of civilians that it has carried out in the Gaza Strip, which is already to reach the figure of 35,000.
Saudi Arabia, the friend chosen by Bush at that time, and its current leader, the charismatic Mohamed bin Salmán, have already realized that the world is changing and it is very likely that they will have to let go of the hand of the United States to move forward. In March 2023 and in a brave decision, his and Iran’s foreign ministers would seal an initial meeting with a handshake, in none other than Beijing, the capital of China.
Bin Salman would also receive the Russian president in Riyadh, almost two years after the start of the Special Military Operation by Russia against NATO and Ukraine, considered another snub for the West, which already hoped that its demonization campaign would force Vladimir Putin to stay in Moscow. Days later, one of the main topics the two leaders talked about would become known, when Riyadh announced its entry into the BRICS geopolitical bloc, joining forces with China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa and, contradictorily for Washington, Iran.
