US imperialism, the Middle East, and Israel

A little over a quarter of a century ago, in 1998, when the US first articulated what is briefly known as the Greater Middle East Project (later called the Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative, or BMENA), it aimed to achieve three things, according to the project's proponents and supporters. 

First, it was to ensure economic development. Second, it was to bring political stability to the region. Third, it was to establish an effective security architecture to prevent terrorism, conflicts, uprisings, and wars... 

In fact, there was a disagreement between the US and its European allies at the time, as the US placed security at the top of its priority list, while the Europeans prioritized economic and political steps. We know what happened afterward... 

US imperialism, along with its allies in NATO—its apparatus for aggression and occupation—descended upon the region. The US, which views violating international law as its right and privilege, and which claims to base this on political, religious, and moral foundations as a unique exceptionalism, massacred millions of innocent people with the invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. 

If you were to ask the US, since what is good for the US is good for the world, what is in the interest of the US is in the interest of the world, and the security of the US is the security of the world, these actions were the US's responsibility to humanity.  

However, after a while, it became clear that the US was running out of breath; it did not have the power to do everything it wanted. It was destroying and burning, but it could not establish the order it desired. Furthermore, it wasn't just small and medium-sized states that were negatively affected by US barbarism, but major powers as well. They could not maximize their interests and began to compete with the US, either openly or covertly. This was seen in Afghanistan. It was seen when Iran gained the most from the Iraq invasion. It was seen when Russia and China increased their influence in the region and supported forces opposed to the US. It was seen in Syria...  

The US's capacity for hegemony and its geopolitical dominance were also weakening.

Hegemony involves the production of consent, leadership, the ability to solve problems, the capacity to make one's own values attractive, the ability to make one's own culture appealing to others, and elements of soft power. In imperialism, however, elements of hard power—violence, oppression, force, and imposition—come to the fore. Just as US hegemony was eroding, its economic power was also declining. All that remained in its hands were the US Navy and the US dollar. 

The world has changed, and so has the US.

The definition provided by the renowned French political scientist Maurice Duverger for empires (first, they produce ideology, values, and culture; second, they produce security; third, they are expansionist) also applies to US imperialism and US hegemony. 

However, the US is no longer the same US it once was. Throughout the 20th century, the number of coups, attempted coups, and covert operations organized by the US in Latin American countries alone is nearly a thousand. The famous American linguist and political thinker Noam Chomsky, who is also well-known in our country, says: “The recent history of US foreign policy is a history of overthrowing the regimes of other countries.” Lindsey O’Rourke, a political scientist at Boston College (author of the book 'Covert Regime Change: America’s Secret Cold War'), writes that between 1947 and 1989, that is, throughout the Cold War, the US carried out 64 covert regime change operations. Historian John Henry Coatsworth explains that the US changed governments in Latin America 41 times between 1898 and 1994. 

There are, of course, those within the US who draw attention to the decline in US power and the erosion of its state capacity. For instance, the famous political science professor and former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski made warnings in this direction. Following in the footsteps of the British Halford John Mackinder, the pioneer of the Heartland Theory, and stating that “he who rules Eurasia rules the world,” Brzezinski constantly warned US leaders regarding the country’s alliances. Beyond this, whether they lean toward the Rimland theory of the American Nicholas J. Spykman or adopt the sea power theory of the American Alfred Thayer Mahan, scholars, experts, and researchers from the realist school have pointed to the decline in US power. 

There are, of course, those who argue that the US is not losing power, but that only the conditions and anti-US alliances have changed. These experts claim that the US is simultaneously very powerful in both Eurasia and the seas. In other words, they argue that the US is capable of following both the Heartland theory and the sea power theory at the same time, and that it has the strength to adopt both Mackinder’s and Mahan’s theories. While the question of how possible it is to follow two geopolitical theories simultaneously is undoubtedly a theoretical, academic question, the objective situation is that the US does not possess such power. This is because its economic power, military power, political power, diplomatic power, soft power, and leadership capacity are eroding.  

Undoubtedly, there are ebbs and flows in international relations and foreign policy. It is natural. It is inevitable. The overthrow of Assad in Syria was written into the plus column for Israel and the US. Just as Russia and China did not, or could not, protect Gaddafi in Libya, they did not protect Assad either. Moreover, even if they had wanted to protect him, they did not consider doing so because they saw that Assad could not remain in power and that he no longer had support among the people. What Israel has done in Lebanon and Palestine, as well as the tarnished image of Iran, has undoubtedly forced China and Russia to be more cautious, guarded, and prudent in the region.  

The US also knows this: no matter how much it attacks, pressures, or weakens Iran, along with Israel, Iran does not resemble Iraq, Libya, or Syria. Even if there is significant anti-regime opposition internally, when it comes to foreign intervention in Iran, the regime strengthens. The overwhelming majority of dissidents oppose foreign intervention and defend their country. For this reason, among options such as striking Iran’s nuclear facilities, forcing a regime change in Iran, partitioning Iran, weakening Iran, or cutting off its aid to proxy forces in the region, the US appears closest to the last option. 

Furthermore, since Israel is always at the top of the US list of priorities in the region and support for Israel in the US is bipartisan, Israel is also satisfied with the pressure placed on Iran and what has happened in Iraq and Syria. It should not be forgotten that the previous US president, Joe Biden, did not say the following words in vain roughly 40 years ago, in 1986: “If there were not an Israel, the US would have to invent an Israel to protect its interests in the region.”