With regard to the foreign policy of the United States after World War II, its hegemonic orientation becomes clearly evident. After the war and in competition with the Soviet Union, the country implemented its strategy along three axes—economic, military‑security, and political‑ideological—with the aim of establishing hegemonic stability.
The international system after World War II, with the decline in the power of European countries, was divided into two poles under the leadership of the United States and the Soviet Union. As the result, these two countries defined their respective spheres of influence through this division. In the Middle East, the United States sought to establish the order it desired; therefore, it facilitated the creation of the Israeli regime in the territory of Palestine in 1948.
It can be said that the Zionist regime was created as the United States’ protégé in the Middle East, where it grew and gradually seized the lands of the Palestinian people and other countries. During the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, the occupation of territories by the Israeli regime with American support included the following: part of the Golan Heights from Syria, part of Sinai from Egypt (which was later returned under a peace agreement), Gaza from Egypt (which was later transferred to the Palestinian self‑governing authority under another agreement), and the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan.
After the end of the Cold War in the 1990s and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States emerged as the dominant hegemon of the international system and, in all regions, sought to impose its preferred order as an interventionist power. In the Middle Eastern subsystem, Washington aimed to establish an order that would allow it to implement its three‑axis strategy—economic, political‑ideological, and military‑security. In this context, the world witnessed the further strengthening of the Zionist regime (America’s protégé) and the intensification of its warlike actions against the Palestinian people and neighboring countries.
With a firm support of the United States for its criminal protégé, this occupying regime ignored international institutions and United Nations resolutions defending the Palestinian people.
In addition, Washington extended a hand of alliance to the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf, which possessed vast oil and gas resources and reserves, and concluded economic, military, and defense agreements with them. Over time, by selling oil and gas to the United States in exchange for purchasing weapons to defend themselves against the presumed enemy—Iran—these countries effectively became cash cows for the United States. Meanwhile, the United States established numerous military bases in the Middle East to defend its interests in the region.
At first, Arab countries in the Middle East opposed Israel’s expansion. However, after concluding defense and military pacts with the United States and amid the exaggeration of the Iranian threat against them by the Zionist regime, these countries moved toward reconciliation with Israel and even toward recognizing it. In order to increase the power of the Zionist regime and exploit Arab countries, the Abraham Peace Plan was introduced during Donald Trump’s first presidential term. According to this plan, Arab signatory countries were required to recognize the occupying Israeli regime. Following Israel’s attack on Gaza, the destruction that ensued, and the genocide that occurred in the region, Arab countries—fearing public opinion and internal opposition—condemned the actions of the occupying regime and set aside the Abraham Peace Plan.
In recent years, particularly after the Hamas attack, Zionist and even American officials have openly spoken about the “Greater Israel” project—a project that directly threatens Arab nations. It is clear that the Israeli regime ideologically supports the Greater Israel plan, and several cabinet ministers actively promote its implementation in the occupied Palestinian territories.
It must be noted that the territories of Syria and Lebanon are fully depicted on the map of Greater Israel as parts of Israeli land. Some extremist Zionists even consider Cyprus to be part of Israel’s territory. In addition, parts of southeastern Anatolia in Turkey are also marked on the Greater Israel map as belonging to Israel.
In reality, American and Zionist officials consider Arab countries to be artificial and accidental entities on the regional map, suggesting that these countries lack genuine identity and occupy lands that God intended for Israel. The so‑called Greater Israel project reminds many observers of the “Yinon Plan,” a plan for the fragmentation of Syria, Iraq, and other Arab countries as a condition for the survival of the Israeli regime. In 1982, Oded Yinon, a Zionist diplomat and journalist, published an article titled “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s.” The article presented a strategic vision outlining the future of Israel in its Arab environment and focused on the idea of fragmenting neighboring countries into smaller entities based on sectarian and ethnic divisions in order to ensure Israel’s continued superiority.
The reflection of the Yinon Plan in the policies of Netanyahu and his fascist cabinet, supported openly by the United States, is clearly visible. Netanyahu’s policies have extended beyond the borders of the occupied Palestinian territories, and he seeks to expand Israel’s occupation further into Arab lands.
Given Trump’s unconditional support for Israel and his rhetoric encouraging Zionist officials toward unlimited military aggression against all enemies, his second presidential term in the United States promises an Israel that is even less restrained, making territorial expansion in the style of Greater Israel more likely.
The Arab countries of the Middle East, which remain in a state of neglect, cannot ignore the reality that the Zionist regime poses an existential threat to them—even though these countries maintain military and defense agreements with the United States, the main supporter of Israel. Over time, these countries will realize that their alliance with Washington itself represents an existential threat and that they are trapped in a quagmire from which they cannot escape.
In the American‑Zionist imposed war against Iran, Arab countries of the Middle East know well that if they participate against Iran, after the war they will face an occupying regime whose aggressive policies have no limits, and the path toward implementing the Greater Israel project will become far smoother. Their participation in the current war against Iran would be the greatest mistake in their history—one that would cost them their sovereignty and territorial integrity.
It should be noted that for the Israeli regime—with its relatively small population and limited military manpower—subjugating, let alone conquering, annexing, and controlling surrounding territories with populations exceeding 150 million people is not feasible. Nor can it rely solely on superior technology and weapons to fill its “strategic gap.” Even if such capabilities were realized, subjugating the region—including regime change in Iran—could not impose an American peace or a Jewish peace on the region. Most grand schemes originating from narcissistic and extremist ideologues ultimately fail because they are driven by illusions of grandeur, superior power, invincibility, and glory—illusions that fail to recognize their own limitations and fragile foundations.
The Greater Israel project highlights concerns that the regional balance of power may shift toward an Israeli regime increasingly willing to launch attacks across the Middle East and showing little interest in peace. Even if the conquest of lands between the Nile and the Euphrates proves impossible, a region in which Israel becomes the dominant power would undoubtedly lead to more attacks, more wars, and, when deemed necessary, further territorial occupations.
