Geopolitical Chess: The Middle East Intrusion

Syed Salman Mehdi writes on the complex geopolitical dynamics in the Middle East, focusing on the collaboration between Zionists and Turkey to undermine Palestine, alongside the US-Israeli alliance. He discusses geopolitical theories that illustrate the strategic importance of Israel, American interests in the region, and the ongoing violence and instability that affect countless lives. His op-ed concludes by emphasizing the importance of intelligence in military operations and hints at a potential strategy behind perceived failures in detection and response. 

Zionists and Turkey are apparently collaborating to undermine Palestine. The US-Israeli alliance’s nationalist fanatics have clearly invested much in this “Great Game,” even as Turkey grapples with the legacy of the Lausanne Treaty. If a few hundred thousand are slain, what difference does it make?

Throughout history, ever-changing maps and geopolitical theories have sought to explain the acquisition of power by force and dominance, shedding light on the Middle East’s continuous dynamics, particularly Israel’s strategic relevance and American engagement. Friedrich Ratzel’s Organic Theory described states as living entities that require territorial expansion to survive (Politische Geographie, 1897, Oldenbourg Verlag), a concept that the US has continued to support to maintain influence in the resource-rich Middle East.

Alfred Mahan’s sea power theory emphasized trade route control and maritime dominance as the most important components of world power (The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1890, Little, Brown & Company), reflecting American interest in protection and military projection in the Mediterranean, Red Sea, and Persian Gulf.
Halford Mackinder’s heartland thesis identified Eurasia as the center of world governance (The Geographical Journal, 1904, Royal Geographical Society), with Israel and the Middle East functioning as critical gates to this vital area. Karl Haushofer’s pan-region theory envisioned self-sufficient blocs, with American attempts to keep Israel stable in the face of an alliance of opposing nations such as Russia and China (Geopolitics of the Pacific Ocean, 1924, Kurt Von Wunkel Verlag).

Nicholas Spykman’s Rimland thesis advocates for control of the coastal territories encircling the heartland, with the US collaborating with Israel and Turkey to rule these strategic areas. Saul Cohen’s Shatterbelt theory saw fragmented regions like the Middle East as arenas of great power competition (Geography and Politics in a World Divided, 1963, Random House), as evidenced by recent power shifts, such as Turkish-backed forces seizing control of Damascus following the fall of Hafez Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Immanuel Wallerstein’s world-system theory defined the US-Israeli relationship as a global hierarchy in which core states such as the US extract economic and strategic value from periphery regions.

Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Grand Chessboard Theory emphasized the importance of Eurasia in American strategy (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997, Basic Books), with Israel functioning as a critical partner in countering opponents such as Iran and protecting American interests. Henry Kissinger’s Realpolitik emphasized practical relationships and balance of power (Diplomacy, 1994, Simon & Schuster), explaining American backing for Israel in the face of larger regional instability. Modern technology-driven theories stress cyberspace and innovation as new theatres of power (Cyberwar: The Next Threat to National Security and What to Do About It, HarperCollins, 2010), with Israel’s superior technical skills making it an American ally. Palestine is an open-air jail laboratory with lethal weapons labs, destroyed cities, and sophisticated weaponry tested on humanity.

Together, these ideas show how the occupation of Israel and American assistance solidified American geopolitical hegemony while also securing substantial influence in an unstable area, assuring supremacy in global trade, energy markets, and strategic military positions. The demise of the Assad government and Turkey’s expanding role in Syria highlights the dynamic fight for influence in this critical area. But how many people have been and will continue to be victims of this bloodshed? There are no Shiites or Sunnis, Arabs, Turks, Persians, or Palestinians, only people who are unable to live peacefully in their neighborhoods because foreign powers seek to govern the world.

The aforementioned beliefs highlight that events like the migration of Jews to Palestine during World War II, the rise of the Ba’ath Party, and the abrupt fall of Hafez Bashar al-Assad’s regime were not entirely unexpected. Unfortunately, sitting in Pakistan, I can only attempt to grasp the situation and observe that no one is in charge of it. This series does not appear to be coming to a close. Military operations require extensive and meticulous planning, including surveillance, intelligence gathering, logistics, and troop mobilization. They involve more than just transferring troops from one location to another; they also require detailed planning and continual execution. 

In principle, the United States and Israel should be able to identify such actions due to their superior intelligence capabilities, which include satellite monitoring, signal interception, and human intelligence. However, there is a failure to act on accessible intelligence. The inability to detect may be evidence of a planned strategy rather than a failure to detect. This strategic monitoring is often portrayed as part of a larger geopolitical strategy serving long-term national objectives. One possible explanation for Israel’s military preparedness and intelligence limitations could be their alignment with broader efforts to curb Iran’s regional influence. 

This includes an emphasis on blocking Iranian supply routes to Syria, which backs Hezbollah and Hamas against Israel. A regime change campaign in Syria might be part of Israel’s strategy to defeat Iranian-backed troops in the area. Furthermore, there are allegations of clandestine US help for Turkey, which is deploying a Ukrainian-trained Turkish military to seize control of sections of Syria. This is compatible with Turkey’s objectives to exert authority and resist Kurdish dominance, which is backed by Saudi Arabia’s call for broader regional power sharing.

Maintaining strategic operations from its borders, either directly or through proxies, aligns with Israel’s larger objective of regional stability, which seeks to limit Iranian influence and weaken institutions opposed to Israeli interests. The interaction between US backing for Turkey, Saudi engagement in the Kurdish power alliance, and Israel’s emphasis on Syria and Lebanon reflects a coordinated effort to shift the regional power balance, producing a situation that may indirectly provide Israel with “comfort.” It attempts to undermine its rivals’ supply lines and strategic positions (The Jerusalem Post, December 2024).

Israeli soldiers were never equipped for a lengthy conflict, and many of them were only good for three months, so they were not as tough as Hamas and Hezbollah, and they could not compete with them without American technology. While these Lebanese and Palestinians are also battling with automatic and traditional weapons, they are standing firm. Syria’s geopolitical and strategic relevance becomes apparent when seen on a global scale. The strategic connection between Iran and Hezbollah made possible via a land bridge through Iraq and Syria, is critical to Iranian backing for Hezbollah, which is a significant factor in stopping Israel from realizing its objective of a “Greater Israel.” 

This land connection is critical for Hezbollah to resupply and continue its activities, especially as it poses a danger to Israel. Without this connection, Iran’s capacity to finance Hezbollah—and hence its strategic influence in Lebanon—would be severely limited. Breaking this bridge would need striking Syria or Iraq. Disrupting Syria, particularly through regime change, would be one method to cut off this critical relationship, limiting Iran’s ability to fund Hezbollah. The US, Israeli, and Turkish interventions in the Syrian crisis might be viewed as part of a larger effort to weaken Iran’s regional capabilities.

Syria, under Assad, became a focal point for exploiting these fault lines, particularly because Assad’s ruthless administration and reliance on Iranian and Hezbollah assistance left it open to outsider influence (Council on Foreign Relations, 2021). And now that Hamas and Hezbollah’s top leadership has been slain in Israeli attacks, it will take decades for them to recover. The truce in the Lebanon-Israel border dispute suggests that Hezbollah is unprepared for future military escalation.

While the West, notably the United States and its allies, may have recognized Syria’s strategic importance, it is failing to resist the rising influence of groups like HTS, which was founded on Al-Qaeda and ISIS affiliations.

The transformation of HTS from a covert terrorist organization to a more visible force, shielded from US counterterrorism operations, implies that the US and its allies have permitted these organizations to play a role in undermining the Assad regime to safeguard Israel’s regional interests. Furthermore, such an aggressive movement is impossible without international intervention, as neighboring countries such as Saudi Arabia and the United States, as well as other emerging interest groups—Russia, Iran, the United States, Israel, and Turkey—are all now involved in a larger strategic game.

It is feasible to partition Syria into five sections, but this will be difficult since forcefully uniting these five regions may result in terrorism and the formation of new terrorist organizations. Finally, military maneuvers and diplomatic connections to preserve Israel’s interests in restricting Iran’s reach would help Greater Israel achieve its objectives. The current situation in Syria is complex. While concerns about the government’s reliance on external powers persist, consistent collaboration between Saudi Arabia and Turkey could potentially address challenges.

The previous government, by putting the veneer of socialism over nationalism, kept 80% of the population represented by a minority of 20%. We have seen the results.
Russia has a vested interest in defending Bashar al-Assad against American forces in the Middle East.