The Responsible Statecraft website published an article by Jennifer Kavanagh, a political analyst and senior military researcher, in which she analyzes whether Israel could become the new regional hegemon in the Middle East. The author notes that the United States has prevented the emergence of hegemonic states in other regions for many years, but has never been a real hegemonic competitor in the Middle East. In recent years, Israel's aggressive foreign policy has created the impression that it can become the dominant power in the region.
It is also noted that Israel lacks sufficient economic potential, a vast network of allies, and soft power, so it cannot become a hegemon on its own. It maintains its current position mainly at the expense of American military and financial support, acting as an agent of US hegemony.
The author concludes that if the United States wants to prevent Israel from abusing its support and harming its own interests, it should gradually reduce its military presence and support in the region and restrain Israel's aggressive policy.
Radar Armenia publishes the article with some abridgements, presenting the main theses:
"Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East?
The emergence of a regional hegemonic state in the Middle East, endowed with both military and economic dominance, has long been a key goal of US foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared the Soviet Union's dominance in Europe. Today, US policymakers are concerned about China's growing military potential, which could push the US out of Asia's economic markets. At the same time, the US has repeatedly prevented its allies from becoming military competitors, keeping them weak and dependent on American security guarantees.
Historically, there have been no serious hegemonic rivals in the Middle East. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iraq did not have sufficient military capabilities and economic potential to establish dominance, and the region is divided by long-standing mutual distrust. This was the rationale for the proponents of US withdrawal: since there was no real hegemonic challenge, Washington did not have to hinder its political influence.
However, Israel's aggressive foreign policy of the past two years has called these assumptions into question. Israel has acted with near impunity, using devastating military force against various countries, expanding its de facto borders with "buffer zones" in Lebanon and Syria, and carrying out assassination attempts in Lebanon, Yemen, Iran, Qatar, and Gaza. These actions have shifted the balance of power in the region in Israel's favor and demonstrated its military superiority over its neighbors.
Although Israel's military capabilities are impressive, it actually has very little chance of becoming a regional hegemon on its own. Its economy does not account for a significant share of the region's GDP, it lacks sufficient natural allies, and it has limited "soft power" among its neighbors. Therefore, Israel can only form a semi-hegemonic position, which is possible with US financial and military patronage. As Trita Parsi has noted, "Israel cannot continue its wars without US funding, arms supplies, and diplomatic protection; this is Israel as an agent of US hegemony."
US support reinforces Israel's semi-hegemonic position in three ways:
1. Military support for offensive and defensive operations (e.g., F-16 fighters, bombs in Gaza and Lebanon).
2. Unrestricted political support: US guarantor in the event of counterattacks and international pressure.
3. Regional balance: US presence deters anti-hegemonic actions by neighbors and restrains Israeli advances.
For the US, withdrawal from the Middle East is no longer an option; it is necessary to prevent Israel from continuing to benefit from American support by acting against US interests.
The Trump administration could begin by withdrawing forces and limiting offensive assistance to Israel, clearly defining red lines for defense assistance and violations of territorial sovereignty.
These steps do not sever the US-Israeli relationship. Still, they provide a stable, aligned, and controllable redefinition of the relationship, in which the US remains a security guarantor without harming its own interests."
Prepared by Arman Galoyan
