Five “American-Zionist” Projects in our Region…  The Stick is a Stick, and the Carrot is a Stick too!

Five “American-Zionist” Projects in our Region… The Stick is a Stick, and the Carrot is a Stick too!

The Arab region and the Middle East have always been arenas for Western projects, especially American-British-Zionist. Perhaps the most important of them is the “Greater Middle East Project” expressed by Shimon Peres in his book, which is not disconnected from what we will discuss in this article (we will devote a later article to comparison between the theoretical presentation in the Peres project and the practical applications that we are witnessing).

The prevailing feature of these projects was their secrecy, e.g., the American Alpha and later the Gamma plans towards Egypt in the 1950s. This secrecy is, of course, justified, at least in that era. They were conspiratorial projects based on a purely American-Zionist interest, and completely against the interest of the peoples of the region.

This feature has changed over the past few years in terms of form only, especially with the so-called “Abraham Accords”, that is, the agreements of normalization with the Zionist entity. “Overtness” has become an essential feature of Western projects. More precisely, what is meant by “overtness” here is the volume of overt media and political promotion of the concerned projects, while declaring part of their goals, not all goals and not the most important of course.

We review hereinbelow five political-economic-military projects designed for our region that have been promoted and worked on over the last five years. By this, we aim to highlight their commonalities on the one hand, and also to be able by grouping them together to better understand the comprehensive American-Zionist vision for our region and the policies used to achieve that vision. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, grouping these projects together and studying them as terms within a comprehensive plan, then measuring the extent to which those terms are achieved, allows drawing some conclusions not only about the future of these individual projects, but also about the future of the West as a whole, and in particular the Zionist entity in our region.

As mentioned above, the individual projects that we will deal with here – though they are not of equal importance and are not all the projects being worked on – constitute the main terms of one comprehensive project. These projects are:

  • The “Abraham Accords”
  • The “Arab NATO”
  • The “Arab Gas Pipeline”
  • “Changing the Regime’s Behavior”
  • The “Jordanian Initiative for Solving the Syrian Crisis”


First: The “Abraham Accords”

In August 2020, the UAE inaugurated the first of the normalization agreements with the Zionist entity, which later came to be known as the “Abraham Accords” and included Bahrain. Their subsequent effects extended to varying degrees of completing the required task towards Morocco, Oman, and Sudan.

Two years after this agreements wave, we can see their general outcome according to the following trends:

  • The “economic” and “security” pretexts used by the normalization regimes to justify their perpetration of these agreements, have completely collapsed. The signatory states, at best, did not benefit from these agreements in an economic sense, not to mention that they were actually harmed. On the security side, these agreements reinforced the various regional threats and regional conflicts, which were the pretext for those regimes to enter the agreements. Specifically, the Gulf crisis with Iran deepened at the time and became more threatening after the signing of the agreements, as did the Moroccan-Algerian crisis. This means that these agreements were, in effect, a tool for additional tension and a tool of additional sinking in the already existing crises.
  • As to “Israel’s” security, and its attempts to swallow up the Palestinian cause and finish it off through these agreements, the facts said the exact opposite. The amount of resistance inside the Palestinian territories, the degree of its organization, the rapprochement of forces within it, and its reach to the 1948 territories (occupied territories) for the first time on such a large scale since the second intifada, all confirmed that these agreements had an adverse effect on “Israel”.
  • As to “Israel’s” attempt to jump through these agreements from the farther regional space to the closer and more influential one also failed. To put it more clearly, the signatories to the agreements have no real value with regard to the Palestinian cause, and signing with them was intended to pave the way towards four targets: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Lebanon. This is because the position that any of these countries can take, positively or negatively, is worth many times the weight of the agreements that were signed. When it comes to Iran and Saudi Arabia, what was required and declared was the formation of an “Arab-Israeli alliance” to confront Iran. This is how the issue was promoted, but its actual goal is to protect the Zionist entity by shifting its battle with the Palestinians, with the Arabs, and with the Iranians, into a battle between Arabs and Iranians, in which the Zionist stands as a fan and instigator. As for Lebanon and Syria, securing the external and internal environments to completely uproot them from the anti-“Israel” positions is, from the Zionist point of view, the remedy to the existential crisis it is experiencing in light of the accelerating American and Western retreat.
  • Perhaps the most important trend, with regard to these agreements, is the nature of their positioning within the entire international conflict. It was intended for these agreements to be a tool in mobilizing the countries and peoples of the region behind the Americans, not only in confronting Iran, but, more importantly, in confronting China and Russia. This was supposed to happen specifically by pushing to the forefront secondary conflicts in the region and turning it into an arena of total devastation, especially the Gulf states and Iran, so that they do not have the luxury of taking any position that is independent from the Americans in the midst of the global battle, a position similar to the decision made by OPEC+ a few days ago, and similar to the positively neutral position towards Russia.


Second: The “Arab NATO”

The Jordanian monarch was the first one to put out in the public the idea of ​​an Arab NATO. The idea does not differ in its essence and objectives from the “Abraham Accords”, but it constitutes the desired military aspect of these agreements. It is based on the establishment of some form of security alliances, at the center of which lies “Israel” and its American patron, and its troops are the Arab countries, especially the Gulf. The declared goal of the idea is to fight Iran, and the undeclared goal is to create a block that is globally hostile to China and Russia. Another undeclared goal is to create a highly tense, charged, and destructive regional situation, if possible, so that the bottom line will lead to the same outcome. Moreover, it serves the prospects of a broad American withdrawal from the entire region, so that this alliance establishes the succession of the Americans and achieving their goals at the lowest costs for the Americans within their global battle.

This idea, also, got nowhere, nor can it get anywhere. It has become crystal clear from the practical experience of the Gulf countries, especially Saudi Arabia and specifically in Yemen, that the Americans and Zionists have not offered anything, neither at the military and security levels, nor at the political level. In contrast, the Russians have been able to play the role of a trusted mediator by both the Iranians and Saudis, and have been able through this particular mediation to reach a near complete ceasefire in Yemen and a significant or complete decline in security threats to the Gulf countries.

Added to that is the Iranian and Saudi readiness to join both BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), as well as the intersection of their interests regarding the nature of desired international economic and political relations, particularly in the fields of petroleum and natural gas. All of this plays a role in bringing them closer, albeit through some difficulties.


Third: The “Arab Gas Pipeline”

The Kassioun Research Unit has discussed at length the “Arab Gas Pipeline” file and looked at it from many angles: economic, historical, and political. Through the linked included herein, one can look at the entire file of these studies. What we can add in this context is the following:

  • This project constitutes an economic aspect that serves the main goals of the “Abraham Accords”, just like how the “Arab NATO” serves the security aspect, within a comprehensive project. This project uses the normalization countries and hides behind them to extend the process of Zionist encirclement from the farther edges towards what remains of the closer countries, that is, Syria and Lebanon.
  • This project is part of a larger historical project, the “Greater Middle East Project”, put forth by Shimon Peres, and which aims to transform “Israel” to an energy and water center for the entire region, which would allow laying foundations for this baseless entity.

What is new in the matter, other than the continued stumbling of the project despite all the hype around it, is that the US Congress has recently introduced amendments to the “Caesar Act” (one of the US laws imposing sanctions on Syria), which would undermine the possibility of realizing the project. More importantly, these amendments would raise the degree of blackmail in using it, as will be shown in the summary hereinbelow.


Fourth: “Changing the Regime’s Behavior”

Kassioun has discussed in many articles the Western slogan of “changing the regime’s behavior” instead of “toppling” it. Here is a list of links to five of those articles that can sum up the overall view of the issue: article 1, article 2, article 3, article 4, and article 5 (this one is only available in Arabic).

What we can briefly say about the issue in the context of this article is the following:

  • The primary target of the “changing the regime’s behavior” slogan, and all the measures and maneuvers it encompasses, as well as threats and enticements, is to perpetuate the status quo and give the extremists margins for movement between West and East in such a way to allow prolonging and deepening the crisis, and preventing a solution thereof, leading to a complete collapse not of the regime, but the entire country. (It is not difficult to see the link between this slogan and the “Arab Gas Pipeline” project, and therefore all the projects discussed here).
  • Among the tools used in this process, the UAE is being used in particular as a gateway to implementing this slogan, but also as one of the gateways to tying it with the comprehensive project we are discussing here, that is, practically the “Greater Middle East Project”.
  • Undoubtedly, among the goals too is working against China and Russia in the region, especially in Syria, and through working against the Astana track in particular. Kassioun illustrated that in several articles, the last of which was an article by the Political Editor on September 5, titled “Normalizing Relations with Syria: One Slogan, Two Contradictory Subjects” (in Arabic).
  • One of the updates in this issue, as we noted in the “Arab Gas Pipeline” section above, is the amendment introduced by the US Congress to the “Caesar Act”. This amendment practically includes the “Arab Gas Pipeline” project and places it under sanctions, or at least threatens to do so, because whether or not it is included is to be determined, thus leaving it as a blackmail and negotiation card. This actually reflects that the project is not going well, regardless of the desires of the extremists from all sides and their search for a way out for themselves. This has an explanation, which we will get to in the summary hereinbelow.


Fifth: The “Jordanian Initiative for Solving the Syrian Crisis”

In its last issue, Kassioun took a preliminary look, among other files, at the latest Jordanian initiative (in Arabic) calling for an “Arab solution” to the Syrian crisis. We add here the following:

  • Joran deliberately used vague terms in talking about its initiative, especially in those relating to the Saudi position therefrom. It was not clear whether or not Saudi Arabia supports the initiative (the contents of which are still unknown). This could mean at least two things, either Saudi Arabia is not an essential part of the supposed initiative, or Saudi Arabic does not want to be in the forefront until it is tested or because it is convinced that it will lead nowhere.
  • Regardless of what the supposed initiative could include, the most important thing about it are two clear things: first, the initiator is Jordan, the authorities of which have proven for many decades its clear functional role in the region (and Jordan proposing the “Arab NATO” idea is one example of such a role); second, talk about an “Arab Initiative” implicitly means an initiative to confront each of Turkey and Iran, and therefore Russia, and ultimately confront the Astana track.
  • The timing of this proposal is also not surprising. After the Tehran and then the Sochi summits, and after it became clear that the Astana trio is on the way to work towards implementing UNSC Resolution 2254, whether or not the West participates, especially after talk about a possible Turkish-Syrian rapprochement, and Iranian and Russian mediation therein, after all that, it is necessary to balance things “Westerly” one way or another, with the goal of disrupting a solution and preventing the Astana track from moving forward towards the desired outcomes.
  • Within the same context are the frantic American activities with regards to Syria in the last two months. This includes intensifying work in northeastern Syria and with al-Nusra Front in northwestern Syria, as well as with the extremists from the different Syrian sides above and below the table. There is also the attempt to revive the Western “Small Group” (currently known as the “Contact Group”), in addition to a push towards inventing new proposals like an “international conference on Syria”. Added to that is also a push towards expanding the adoption of the so-called “step-for-step”, which in a practical sense represents a diplomatic manifestation and furthering the policy of “changing the regime’s behavior”.


An inventory

The five aforementioned projects are in the end one comprehensive project for the Arab and Middle East region. If we try to look for commonalities among these projects, and what they have or could achieve, we can see the following main trends:

  • The center of all of these projects is the US and “Israel”.
  • The most important common objective among them is the attempt to pull region entirely under an American-“Israeli” wing in the existential battle against Russia, China, and their allies.
  • The second objective, which is organically linked to the first, is securing “Israel” within the current and subsequent circumstances, which the Zionists know more than anyone else will be “unsuitable” for them at all, if we want to use a phrase that “soften” the destiny awaiting them.
  • The third objective, which is more practical and achievable than the first two, is turning the entire region into total ruin, especially the Gulf, which still maintains a relatively high stability within the existing international chaos. As for nearly collapsed countries like Syria, the goal is to push them towards complete collapse. This would block the way before Russia and China and their projects in the region, not to mention turning this very vital region into a heavy burden for each of them instead of possibly turning it into a supporting region on the basis of mutual interests.
  • The tool for enforcing these projects is combining threats and enticements, various sanctions and destructive acts, temptations of mainly IMF loans and political temptations represented by pledging that the regimes remain.
  • The most important tool in implementing these projects is the local extremists and big corruption figures in the Arab countries, who at the end of the day comprise an economically-subservient group, and its job is to plunder and sabotage its country to the benefit of the Western center and its neocolonialism and dollar.
  • What is amusing, historically speaking, is that the temptations of the US and “Israel” have also become the threats. That is, the stick is a stick, and the carrot is also a stick. Washington does not have anything to offer to its allies and followers except destruction. For example, the idea of the “Arab NATO” which is presented as a security reward to protect the Gulf countries, is in reality a security threat to these countries. Also, the supposed “Arab Gas Pipeline” project, which is presented as a way of salvation for Lebanon out of its crisis is so economically meager, as we have shown in our studies, that it is another nail in Lebanon’s economy’s coffin. Turning to the policy of “changing the regime’s behavior” in Syria, which is presented as a way out of change for the extremists in the regime, is in reality a perpetuation of weakening them and a threat to their existence even more than political change itself.



All the projects that the West and its followers are touting in relation to our region are no longer projects designed for implementation, but rather projects that aim to impede the projects of others. These projects, collectively and individually, have no chances of being realized, and the same applies to those following the mirage of these projects.


(النسخة العربية)