We are no longer in front of a "new Middle East". This is a fixed idea that time has overtaken at an astonishing speed. In reality, we are now facing a new world. The Middle East in this context is merely a stone in the workshop of reshaping the global map.

What the American administration is doing has not yet been fully absorbed by the strategic mind. It is similar to artificial intelligence, which is slowly removing from its path all the concepts that once dominated.

There are no longer constants, nor principles, nor givens. Even interests have changed radically, as if the "crazy dreams" had found executive capabilities that they once lacked.

A few days ago, when a US aircraft carrier and its accompanying naval group moved from the South China Sea to the Red Sea amid tensions between Washington and Tehran, a French political analyst said to his fellow panelists on a television program: this group alone exceeds France’s naval military power by at least four times.

This French analyst was not thinking about what Washington could do to Iran if it went ahead with its threat by President Donald Trump to punish the regime for killing protesters against it. Instead, he was obsessed with the tensions between the United States and European countries, including his own, after Uncle Sam went as far as threatening to use military force, not to mention triggering the economic war machine between the largest market in the world, the European Union, and the strongest economy in the world, the United States.

In recent days, and with Trump insisting on the annexation of Greenland under the pretext of guaranteeing the strategic security of the United States, after he had previously spoken at length about the rare minerals in its underground, the American administration worked to sideline Europe, excluded it from the Gaza Peace Council, and invited only the states that left the Union (Britain) or are governed by the far right (Italy and Hungary). It effectively paralyzed the Mechanism Committee responsible for implementing the ceasefire understanding between Israel and Lebanon, in order to sideline the roles of France and the United Nations. It coordinated the restoration of control by the central Syrian government over vital areas previously held by the Kurds, whom Europe had long promised to protect. It turned the UN Security Council into nothing more than a forum to discuss world affairs, removing its ability to make decisions, and pushed developments in Ukraine in a way that fits its interests at the expense of European states.

Allies are no longer considered allies by the American administration. As long as they resist compliance, they become adversaries.

Israel itself has not been spared from Trump’s approach. In Gaza, it must accept what he wants. The composition of the Peace Council, as Trump planned it, is provoking the anger of its leaders, and even his friend Benjamin Netanyahu found himself in a position of “the subdued”. And what applies to Gaza also applies to the American president’s plans for Syria: he does not want it to be a state divided among spheres of regional influence, according to Israeli expectations, but a unified state within the American system.

Israel’s situation regarding Trump’s relationship with Saudi Arabia is also not as it wishes. In recent months, the kingdom has turned into a force of influence in Washington that, to a large extent, matches that enjoyed by Tel Aviv. Riyadh did not need to join the Abraham Accords to get from the White House what it wanted, as had been the case previously.

Nor will Russia or China be able to protect Iran, because at the moment Trump decisively settles on a military course, everyone will retreat to the seats of spectators.

And if this is the situation of influential states and strong regional unions, what can it be for weak, poor, and eroded states like Lebanon, if it remains unable to settle its position on the weapons of Hezbollah, which have become outside the modern era and must be removed, whether through understanding or through war.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar