The applause for China at Davos is sincere: Global Times editorial

By Global Times

Published: Jan 21, 2026

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202601/1353764.shtml

The World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2026 opened on January 19 in Davos, Switzerland. This year's forum was widely regarded as facing severe challenges. An official press release mentioned "the most complex geopolitical backdrop in decades" and "rising fragmentation," while the Global Risks Report 2026, published ahead of the opening, pointed out that "geoeconomic confrontation has emerged as the most severe risk" for 2026. Despite these challenges, the meeting set a record for the highest number of participating leaders and senior government officials in the forum's history. This indicates that the stronger the countercurrents of unilateralism and protectionism, the greater the international call to uphold multilateralism and safeguard the international order.

On January 20 local time, Member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and Vice Premier of the State Council He Lifeng, delivered a speech at the Davos Forum. He said that in January 2017, President Xi Jinping delivered an important speech at the World Economic Forum, which China has seriously implemented, demonstrating firm support for multilateralism and free trade. In recent years, President Xi has put forward four major global initiatives, providing Chinese solutions to address the common challenges facing the world. In his address at the forum, He Lifeng outlined four key points: firmly supporting free trade, steadfastly upholding multilateralism, adhering to win-win cooperation, and promoting mutual respect and equal consultation. China's firm stance was met with sincere and enthusiastic applause at Davos.

Multilateralism and free trade remain the prevailing aspirations of the international community, and China has always stood on the right side of history. The Global Cooperation Barometer released by the World Economic Forum shows that, despite the strong headwinds facing multilateralism, global cooperation still demonstrates a certain level of resilience. From international cooperation on climate change, to global discussions on AI governance, to developing countries' demands for fair development, all point to one conclusion: only unity and cooperation can effectively address global challenges.

In a world of growing uncertainty, China has consistently upheld moral principles and practiced opening-up and cooperation, choosing to do what is difficult yet right. 

As the world's second-largest economy, China has followed through on its commitments and always acted as a responsible major country, firmly safeguarding multilateralism and promoting economic globalization toward a more universally beneficial and inclusive direction. The Recommendations of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China for Formulating the 15th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development clearly commits to expanding high-standard opening-up and steadily advancing institutional opening-up. From the expansion of pilot free trade zones to the development of the Hainan Free Trade Port, and from the China International Import Expo to the China International Fair for Trade in Services, China's door to opening-up continues to open wider, offering vast market opportunities for global businesses. 

World Economic Forum President Borge Brende has noted that China is doubling down on investment in research, development and innovation, and that "technologies can represent huge opportunities for productivity gains and also growth in the years to come. And China is a major contributor to that."

Prior to the forum, China released its economic data for 2025. Amid the ongoing turbulence in the global situation, the strong resilience of the Chinese economy and its positive role in areas such as global economic governance have received widespread praise. In the face of a complex and severe international environment and the domestic tasks of reform, development, and maintaining stability, the Chinese economy has continuously signaled steady progress, becoming an important force in promoting healthy global development. China actively participates in the reform and construction of the global governance system and insists on following a path of peaceful development. China's development practice fully demonstrates that countries can handle with state-to-state relations and achieve revitalization through peaceful means and that nations with different social systems and development paths can fully respect each other and achieve win-win cooperation.

This year, the forum's opening ceremony deliberately replaced the guest speeches of previous years with a concert. The forum's official explanation stated that this reflects the "spirit of dialogue" because "music knows no borders, it speaks no single language." The development of human civilization has repeatedly proven that confrontation can only bring destruction and regression, while dialogue and cooperation can create prosperity and progress. The postwar international order was established based on a cherishing of peace and has brought unprecedented long-term peace and development opportunities to the world. Today, as this order faces severe challenges, the international community should return to its original intention, insisting on resolving differences through dialogue rather than confrontation, and addressing conflicts through negotiation rather than pressure.

The greater the storm and snow, the more we need someone to guide the way forward. In this era full of uncertainty, China remains a stable "ballast." We do not engage in exclusive "cliques"; what we offer is a commitment to opening up a market of over 1.4 billion people, shared technological and innovation dividends with the world, and a steadfast adherence to international fairness and justice. 

The profound changes in the international situation will once again prove that multilateralism is the right path for humanity.

Empire of Chaos, Plunder and Strikes in Panic of Being Evicted from Eurasia

Pepe Escobar • January 19, 2026

https://www.unz.com/pescobar/empire-of-chaos-plunder-and-strikes-in-panic-of-being-evicted-from-eurasia/

Tehran will never bow down to the diktats. The neo-Caligula regime change obsession – in fact mirrored as a NATOstan obsession – will keep ruling. Tehran is not intimidated.

The whole planet is somehow convulsed by neo-Caligula’s latest scam: because he did not get his “peace” Nobel from Norway, part of his megalomanic narcissist revenge is to bag Greenland from Denmark (in Empire-speak, who cares? These Scandinavians are al the same anyway).

In neo-Caligula’s own words: “The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland.”

That seals the Empire of Chaos completely morphed into the Empire of Plunder and now the Empire of Permanent Strikes.

Assorted Euro-chihuahuas dared to dispatch a tiny bunch of dog-sled conductors to defend Greenland from neo-Caligula. To no avail. They were instantly hit with tariffs. The strike remains in effect until the “complete and total purchase” of Greenland.

Euro-chihuahuas – following the Global South – may have finally woken up to the new paradigm: Strike Geopolitics.

Neo-Caligula did not get regime change in Caracas – and his oil mirage was refuted even by US energy majors. He did not get regime change in Tehran – even if CIA, Mossad and assorted NGOs worked full time to deliver.

So Plan C is Greenland, essential for imperial lebensraum purposes, as collateral for the unpayable $38 trillion – and rising – debt.

By all means that does not imply ditching the Iran obsession. The USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier is moving into a position in the Sea of Oman/Persian Gulf where it would be able to strike Iran before the end of the week. All attack scenarios remain in place.

Assuming all hell breaks loose, this may become an even more humiliating replay of the 12-day war in June last year, which the death cult in West Asia spent as much as 14 months planning.

The 12-day war not only failed as a regime change op; it engendered a sample of Iranian retaliation so hardcore that Tel Aviv still has not recovered. Tehran has been explicit, over and over again, that the same fate awaits neo-Caligula’s forces in Iran and across the Gulf in case of renewed strikes.

Why the regime change obsession endures

As for the equally, miserably failed regime change op on Iran these past few weeks, it featured on the forefront the pathetic Clown Prince Reza Pahlavi, safely ensconced in Maryland, massively plugged by US media as a “unifying political figure” capable of reassessing the “lived catastrophe of clerical rule”.

Neo-Caligula was too busy to care about these ideological niceties. What he wanted was to accelerate the proceedings by – what else – applying Empire of Permanent Strikes logic: bombing Iran.

Diversionist spin, predictably, went ballistic. The death cult in West Asia may have asked Moscow to tell Tehran that they would not strike if Iran did not strike first. As if Tehran – and Moscow – could trust anything coming from Tel Aviv.

The Gulfie crowd – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman – may have asked neo-Caligula not to strike, because that would have set the whole Gulf on fire and generate “grave blowback”.

The real deal – once again – was TACO. There was simply no gamed US strike scenario that would have allowed lightning quick regime change, the only acceptable outcome. Thus back to bagging Greenland.

It took only a few days to unmask the massive propaganda campaign across NATOstan about “mass casualties” among Iran protesters.

The – fake – figures came from the Center for Human Rights in Iran, located in, where else, New York, and financed by the CIA-infested National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in Washington and other assorted disinformation entities.

The list of reasons for urgent regime change in Iran though remains off the charts, featuring, among others, these four key elements:

1.   Tehran must ditch the Axis of Resistance across West Asia supporting Palestine.

2.   Because Iran is at the privileged crossroads of trade/energy connectivity corridors in Eurasia, both its connections with the
International North–South Transportation Corridor (INSTC) and China’s New Silk Roads (BRI) must be severed. That means blowing up from the inside organic intra-BRICS cooperation between Russia, Iran, India and China.

3.   As over 90% of Iranian oil exports go to China – and are settled in yuan – that’s a serious threat to the petrodollar: the ultimate anathema. That’s where in Empire of Permanent Strikes terms, Iran aligns with Venezuela. It’s our – petrodollar – way or the highway.

4.   The staying power of the never-ending dream of an Iran under the Shah remix – complete with a Shah-style SAVAK secret police; cozy Mossad ties to rein in those Arab barbarians; and a sprawling CIA-run net of surveillance hubs targeting both Russia and China.

How to counter a “regime-change war”

Tehran is not spooked by sanctions – as it has endured over 6,000 of them over four decades, designed to totally strangle its economy and even bring oil exports, in imperial terminology, down “to zero”.

Even under maximum pressure, Iran was capable of building the most extensive industrial base across West Asia; relentlessly invested in self-sufficiency and state of the art military hardware; joined the SCO in 2023 and BRICS in 2024; and for all practical purposes developed a top Global South knowledge economy.

Tsunamis of – digital – ink have been spent on why China has not properly helped Iran so far against imperial maximum pressure, for instance supporting Tehran against the speculative attacks on the rial. That would have cost Beijing almost nothing – compared to its level of foreign reserves.

The speculative attack on the rial was arguably the essential trigger of the protests across Iran. It’s essential to remember that hunger salaries were a key contributor to the collapse of Syria.

It’s up to Beijing to – diplomatically – answer this uncomfortable question. The spirit of BRICS Plus – call it Bandung 1955 Plus – may not survive when we all know this current world war is essentially about resources and finance, which need to be mobilized and properly deployed.

And that brings us to China’s leadership seriously evaluating whether it’s worth to remain a sort of larger version of Germany: embryonically self-centered; harboring fear; and fundamentally selfish in economic and financial terms. The – auspicious – alternative is for China to create sufficiently sized credit facilities within BRICS to an array of friendly nations.

Whatever happens next, it’s clear that the Empire of Permanent Strikes not only will remain “actively hostile” to a multipolar, multi-nodal world; the hostility will be marinated in a toxic sludge of anger and revenge, and subordinated to the ultimate, panic fear: the Empire’s slowly but surely, inexorable expulsion from Eurasia.

Cue to White House Special Representative Witkoff – the real estate Bismarck – enouncing the imperial diktats to Iran:

1.   Stop enriching uranium. Out of the question,

2.   Reduce missile stockpiles. Out of the question.

3.   Reduce approximately 2000 kg of enriched nuclear material (3.67–60 %). That might be negotiated.

4.   Stop supporting “regional proxies” – as in the Axis of Resistance. Out of the question.

Tehran will never bow down to the diktats. But even if it did, the – promised – imperial reward would be the lifting of sanctions (the US Congress will never do it) and a “return to the international community”. Iran is already part of the international community at the UN and inside BRICS, SCO and the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU), among other institutions.

So, the neo-Caligula regime change obsession – in fact mirrored as a NATOstan obsession – will keep ruling. Tehran is not intimidated. Cue to the strategic advisor to Iran’s Parliament Speaker, Mahdi Mohammadi:

“We know that we are facing a regime-change war in which the only way to achieve victory is to make credible the threat that, during the 12-day war, although it was ready, did not get the opportunity to be carried out: a geographically expansive war of attrition, focused on the Persian Gulf energy markets, on the basis of steadily increasing missile firepower, lasting at least several months.”

ISRAEL IS THE PUPPET MASTER BEHIND US POLICY ON IRAN, VENEZUELA, AND GREENLAND

As we have said for years, Donald Trump is a puppet of international Zionism, and specifically of Benjamin Netanyahu.

Trump has always been under the control of some Zionist throughout his life (Roy Cohn, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, Ronald Lauder, Benjamin Netanyahu, Larry Ellison, Steve Wikoff, Jared Kushner, etc.).

Most people and analysts believe that Trump is the original source of the policies he has been pursuing toward Iran, Venezuela, and Greenland.

But that's not the case. Trump is ignorant of history, geopolitics, economics, international relations, and military matters. His Zionist puppeteers have known this since his youth, and that is why they have manipulated him at will for decades.

The policy of destroying the Iranian government and the goal of balkanizing Iran have always been part of Israel's hegemonic project for the Middle East, and as could be seen in the first year of Trump's second presidential term, when Netanyahu asked (or ordered) Trump to participate in the Israeli aggression against Iran, destroying its nuclear facilities, Trump did so without hesitation.

Now Netanyahu is going to force USA to bomb Iran again, this time to destroy Iran's medium and long-range missile facilities, thereby eliminating any possible Iranian retaliation against Israel once the Israeli air force attacks Iran again.

Western economic sanctions against Iran, the infiltration of provocateurs sent by US and Israeli intelligence agencies, and years of social and economic hardship that have worn down the Iranian regime have generated protests against Iran's theocratic government. This is favoring Israel's strategy of regime change in Tehran, for which, once again, the puppet Trump will be at Netanyahu's beck and call to attack the Iranian government under the pretext of supporting the protesters.

For the moment, the Gulf petro-monarchies have managed to halt US attacks against Iran by convincing Trump that such attacks would cause an immediate rise in oil prices, which would run counter to Trump's attempts to keep inflation low in the United States in an election year like 2026.

But as Trump himself has said, "The United States is lock and loaded to attack Iran."

As for Venezuela, the Chávez and Maduro regimes supported the Palestinian cause, broke off diplomatic relations with Israel, publicly accused Israel of committing war crimes and genocide against the Palestinians in its various military incursions into Gaza, and established a close diplomatic and economic relationship with Iran.

All of this put the governments of the late Chávez and the now-deposed Maduro in Netanyahu's crosshairs, making him one of the main instigators for Trump to order the military operation against the Maduro government. Likewise, the Zionist billionaire Paul Singer, taking advantage of Trump's rise to power, and as always, a speculator of government debt bonds or those of companies in financial distress, managed to get US courts to allow him to acquire Venezuela's CITGO oil company for the paltry sum of $5.9 billion, when its market value is nearly $20 billion.

Similarly, Netanyahu is colluding with the Zionist president of Argentina, Javier Milei (whose real last name is Milenkowski, the same as Netanyahu's), to promote what Milei has called the "Isaac Accords" in Latin America (similar to the Abraham Accords in the Middle East), in order to break the alliance that several Latin American governments have formed to support the Palestinian cause and denounce the war crimes and genocide that Israel has committed against the Palestinians.

Finally, Trump's supposed "idea" to annex Greenland came to him from the Zionist billionaire Ronald Lauder, who has been his "friend" practically since childhood.

John Bolton, Trump's former national security advisor during his first presidential term and now considered an "enemy" by the US president, revealed that it was Lauder who convinced Trump to annex Greenland, supposedly to exploit the island's natural resources.

The reality is that international Zionism needs the world to be dominated by the "law of the strongest," because if international law and the UN Charter prevailed, Israel would be the first country in the world to be condemned for its persistent violation of all humanitarian laws and international relations, as it has demonstrated for over two years with the genocide in Gaza and the ethnic cleansing in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as with its attacks on Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iran.

On the other hand, if the world's leading power behaves like a bully, disregarding all international agreements and rules, then Israel is no longer isolated in its actions on the international stage, but can defend its actions by pointing out that the United States does the same; and of course, this volatile behavior of both countries only strengthens their ties. Similarly, Israel exacts a price from Europe for certain political stances regarding the Palestinians. While European countries never sanction or punish Israel for its war crimes, they consistently criticize Israeli governments for their excesses.

Therefore, the fact that the United States now treats Europeans as Third World countries is a source of great satisfaction for Israel and Zionism, as it is a kind of mockery and punishment of Europeans for daring to criticize those who consider themselves the masters of the world.

Donroe Doctrine: Catalyst for a US Strategic Contraction in the Indo-Pacific?

by Harris Jenner | Jan 18, 2026

https://original.antiwar.com/Harris_Jenner/2026/01/18/donroe-doctrine-catalyst-for-a-us-strategic-contraction-in-the-indo-pacific/

The capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on January 3, 2026, marked a watershed moment in international affairs. The operation’s significance lies not only in its brazen execution but in the geopolitical shockwave it triggered. Framed by President Donald Trump as a “law-enforcement” strike against a “drug cartel” leader, the move has since unleashed a cascade of global threats, alienated key allies, and signaled a profound shift in America’s role – from guarantor of a rules-based order to its primary disruptor. Analysts warn that this aggressive revival of Monroe Doctrine principles is precipitating an international credibility crisis, straining alliances, and may force a broad strategic contraction, including in the critical Indo-Pacific region.

Operation Absolute Resolve and the Image of the Rule-Breaker

The mission to seize Maduro, dubbed Operation Absolute Resolve, proved a tactically flawless endeavor with strategically catastrophic consequences. President Trump’s justification – waging a “war on drugs and terrorism” – failed to conceal what critics call nakedly hegemonic behavior. In a single stroke, Washington unilaterally abrogated the core principles of sovereignty and non-intervention it had long championed.

The international reaction was swift and critical. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres stated “These developments constitute a dangerous precedent”. Key allies voiced profound unease. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz insisted that “principles of international law must apply,” while Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez declared on X that Spain would “not recognize an intervention that violates international law.” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer pointedly clarified, “We were not involved.” The unified dismay revealed the fragility of American alliances under sudden strain.

“Allowing such a precedent will further undermine respect for international law, state sovereignty, and civilian protections,” said Celeste Kmiotek, a senior staff lawyer at the Atlantic Council’s Strategic Litigation Project. The message from the White House was unambiguous: the Western Hemisphere remains an exclusive U.S. zone where American security preferences override all other considerations. This unilateralist posture has, in the eyes of many allies, transformed the United States from the system’s guarantor into its primary rule-breaker.

A Widening International Credibility Crisis

In the days following the Venezuela operation, President Trump and his administration issued a series of stark warnings worldwide, cementing an image of the United States as a global “troublemaker” and triggering a deepening credibility crisis.

Trump’s renewed threat to “take over Greenland” prompted a sharp transatlantic rebuke. European leaders issued a joint statement asserting Arctic security “must be achieved collectively.” Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen had earlier warned such an act would mean “the end of the NATO military alliance,” a sentiment echoed by European Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius, who said it would spell “the end of the trans-Atlantic partnership.” This pattern, observers note, has recast the U.S. from an unreliable partner into an active unilateralist power, creating a severe trust deficit in Europe.

Simultaneously, the administration leveled threats across the Western Hemisphere, reviving the image of American big-stick diplomacy. Trump accused Colombian President Gustavo Petro of cocaine trafficking and hinted at military action, suggested Cuba was “ready to fall,” and claimed U.S. forces would hit cartels in Mexico on land. Beyond the hemisphere, he warned that the U.S. was “locked and loaded” if Iran killed peaceful protesters – a threat he later appeared to walk back by claiming he had “reliable information” that killings in Iran were stopping. This suggests he is wavering on direct military action.

This aggressive approach is leading the nation “down a dark hole,” wrote Ted Piccone, a non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, in a recent analysis. “The harmful consequences for U.S. national security, and international peace and security more broadly, will unspool for years to come,” he argued.

The Western Hemisphere Quagmire and a Looming Strategic Contraction

Administration officials frame the action in Venezuela not as an isolated event, but as the execution of a doctrinal shift outlined in the 2025 National Security Strategy. The document explicitly reorients U.S. focus toward its immediate neighborhood, reviving the Monroe Doctrine with a “Trump Corollary” that treats the hemisphere as an exclusive zone of American influence.

Yet the capture of Maduro has not resolved the Venezuelan crisis; it has traded one set of problems for another, potentially more volatile set. Interim President Delcy Rodríguez now presides over a fractured nation, facing emboldened opposition, internal Chavista power struggles, and the threat of armed Colombian guerrilla groups like the ELN. The United States now bears a direct responsibility for stabilizing a country with a collapsed economy and a crippled oil infrastructure requiring massive, long-term investment.

The resources and diplomatic attention demanded by managing a volatile post-Maduro Venezuela – and by confronting other perceived regional threats – will inevitably draw focus from other theaters. “This operation signifies that the Trump administration will prioritize issues in the United States’ near abroad, with correspondingly less attention spent on other regions, including the Indo-Pacific theater,” said I-Chung Lai, President of Taiwan’s Prospect Foundation, summarizing one prominent school of thought.

The 2025 NSS notably de-emphasizes great-power rivalry, stating a goal to “reestablish strategic stability with Russia” and highlighting the aim of “maintaining a genuinely mutually advantageous economic relationship with Beijing.” This rhetorical shift suggests Washington may be preparing for a more transactional and less engaged role in Asia. The ultimate cost of hemispheric overreach, analysts conclude, could be a forced strategic contraction, compelling America to retreat from its traditional commitments in the Indo-Pacific.

The Taiwan Paradox: Arms Sales as a Prelude to Retreat?

This impending contraction reveals a paradox in Washington’s Asia policy. The recent approval of a record $10 billion arms sale to Taiwan appears to be a robust show of support. Yet this hardline move directly conflicts with the conciliatory language of the Pentagon’s latest China report, which emphasizes peaceful intentions and disavows any aim to “strangle, dominate, or humiliate” Beijing. The contrast suggests an administration simultaneously escalating capabilities while trying to manage – and downplay – the risks of confrontation.

This apparent contradiction – arming Taiwan while seeking stability with China – can be understood through analytical frameworks proposed by regional security experts. Michael D. Swaine, senior research fellow in the East Asia Program at the Quincy Institute, contends that Taiwan is not a sufficiently vital interest for the United States to go to war over, and it is urgent for Washington to begin transitioning to a policy to rule out the possibility of joining a war over the island. He outlines how Washington can transition from strategic ambiguity to strategic clarity, which consists of three parts:

First, a period of preparation to ready U.S. allies and partners for the policy that the United States will not intervene directly in defense of Taiwan. The transition process should focus on bolstering the self-defense capabilities and confidence of Taiwan and nearby U.S. allies.

Second, deliberate moves to end strategic ambiguity while enhancing other forms of support for Taiwan.

Third, an effort to minimize the possibility that China will conclude that it could seize Taiwan by force because of the new U.S. policy of nonintervention.

In this light, the record arms sale may serve a dual purpose. First, it acts as an immediate deterrent and provides political support. Second, and more consequentially, it could function as a calculated preparatory move for a broader strategic shift. By massively upgrading Taiwan’s defenses now, the administration may be positioning the island to better withstand future pressure, thereby granting Washington the latitude to scale back its security commitments without triggering an immediate crisis. This aligns with the NSS’s transactional, burden-sharing ethos, which expects allies to take primary responsibility for their own defense. The most provocative interpretation of current events is that the Trump administration is positioning Taiwan with a grand bargain with Beijing, especially whether the U.S. opposition to Taiwan independence is “under serious consideration” and will be part of a potential negotiation package during a future presidential visit to China. Swaine contends that Trump might slightly alter the OCP by stating that the U.S. now “opposes” (in contrast to “does not support”) Taiwanese independence, but he can’t see him going beyond that, he might simply want to improve relations with China so as to make better econ/tech deals and thus does not want the Taiwan issue to disrupt that effort.

The operation against Maduro was not merely a raid but the opening salvo of a revolutionary approach to statecraft. This new paradigm – signaled by stark Monroe Doctrine threats – is unilaterally assertive, dismissive of sovereignty, and corrosive to alliance trust. By focusing on hemispheric threats, it consumes strategic resources, breeds resentment, and risks endless entanglements. Consequently, mired in the Western Hemisphere, the US lacks the bandwidth for significant direct intervention in the Indo-Pacific. The ultimate price of this strategy may well be America’s strategic retreat from the Indo-Pacific.

Why Arab states now oppose a US-Israel attack on Iran

Mohamad Elmasry

16 January 2026

Arab governments that once tolerated the idea of US-led regime change in Iran are now urging restraint, recognizing that Israeli expansionism has become the region's main threat

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/why-arab-states-now-oppose-us-israel-attack-iran

Only a few years ago, many Arab states, particularly in the Gulf, may have viewed a US regime change attack on Iran favourably.

For decades, they regarded Iran with deep suspicion, often treating it as the region's primary threat. But now, as US President Donald Trump reportedly mulls exactly such an attack, Arab leaders, including Gulf rulers long at odds with Tehran, are lobbying the US administration not to strike Iran.

For 27 months, Arab leaders have watched Israel's rampage throughout the region, in pursuit of its "Greater Israel" project, an expansionist biblical vision for territory spanning from the Euphrates River in Iraq to the Nile River in Egypt.

To this end, Israel has significantly expanded its illegal occupation of Arab lands. Not only has Israel carried out genocide in Gaza and indicated its plans to take the territory over, but it has also deepened its hold in the West Bank, Syria and Lebanon.

Perhaps most alarming for Arab leaders, after months of Netanyahu openly declaring his expansionist ambitions, was Israel's unprecedented assault on Qatar, a US ally, in September 2025. That escalation had been preceded only a few months earlier, in June, by Israel convincing the US to bomb Iran in an assault aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear programme and ensuring Israel remains the region's sole nuclear power.

In short, Israel's aim of absolute regional hegemony has never been clearer, and a US strike on Iran would represent both an extension of Israeli aggression and an expansion of its regional power. 

This is the structural shift at the heart of Arab opposition to a potential US-Israel attack on Iran.

Israeli expansionism

Although Israel has attempted to distance itself from a possible US strike on Iran, evidence suggests it is actively fuelling ongoing anti-regime protests that have helped precipitate the most recent American interference.

Earlier this month, both former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and current Israeli Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu suggested that Israeli agents are fuelling the protest movement from the front lines.

Meanwhile, Israel's Channel 14 has insinuated that Israel has been supplying weapons to opposition protesters, who have reportedly killed dozens of Iranian security personnel.

These reports will almost certainly be read by Arab leaders in the context of Israel's decades-long attempt to convince the US to carry out a regime change operation in Iran, as well as America's history of covert regime change and chaos operations in the region.

But Israel's push for regional hegemony is not the only calculation affecting how Arab states view conflict between Iran and the US-Israel axis, or the potential collapse of the Iranian regime.

Recent regional shifts also play an important role.

Since 2023, Iran has been severely weakened, with sanctions crippling the economy and direct attacks by the US and Israel compromising both the country's military capabilities and nuclear programme.

Iran's proxy network has also been degraded. Syria's Bashar al-Assad fell in December 2024, and Lebanon's Hezbollah has suffered mightily in the face of constant Israeli bombardment.

From the perspective of Arab governments, Iran's decline has rendered further attack unnecessary and perhaps counterproductive.

Indeed, while a weak Iran may be manageable and perhaps even desirable, the costs of a completely collapsed Iranian state greatly outweigh any potential benefits.

A shifting threat map

Gulf countries need stability to preserve regional security and further economic interests.

They worry in particular about what an attack on Iran, and a potential Iranian retaliation, could do to oil and natural gas prices.

An Iranian retaliation would likely threaten the Strait of Hormuz, which is essential to the transport of both natural gas and oil. Egypt fears that regime collapse in Iran could lead to further instability in the Red Sea and Suez Canal, both vital to the Egyptian economy.

It is also worth noting that Arab states have themselves moved diplomatically closer to Iran in recent years, in part because of Israeli aggression and expansionism. The Saudis and Iranians restored diplomatic relations in 2023 and moved closer after Israel's September 2025 attack on Qatar.

Iran's relationship with Egypt has also improved.

Moreover, recent events, and in particular Israel's unchecked aggression and territorial expansion, have forced a structural shift in how Arab states assess regional threats.

Gone, at least for now, are the days when Saudi Arabia viewed Iran as its foremost enemy, when Qatar saw Saudi Arabia as its principal threat, or when Egypt treated Qatar as the chief source of regional instability.

Increasingly, Arab regimes, with perhaps the exception of the UAE, now view Israel as the region's most destabilising force.

Israeli expansionism, its willingness to strike across borders without regard for accepted international norms, and its open pursuit of regional hegemony have fundamentally altered how Arab leaders assess risk.

Arab leaders now fear that they may already be on the path of "Greater Israel", or that they could be Israel's next target.

Trump's de-escalation rhetoric on Wednesday may have clarified what some analysts believe has been the US plan all along: squeeze the Iranian economy, support opposition protesters on the ground, and seek regime collapse without the costs of a direct military intervention.

Should the de-escalation trend continue, Arab leaders will be pleased, at least until the next Israeli effort to weaken, destabilise and fragment the region.

The irony is that Israeli belligerence - and American belligerence at the behest of Israel - carries the potential to unite a divided region, if not on the basis of common interests, then at least on the basis of a common threat.

The axis era: West Asia's new map after the ‘Flood’

Operation Al-Aqsa Flood was never just an act of war. It cracked the facade of regional stability, exposed the fault lines of power, and accelerated the pull into four contending poles now reshaping West Asia.

Mohamad Hasan Sweidan

JAN 16, 2026

https://thecradle.co/articles/the-axis-era-west-asias-new-map-after-the-flood

“Al-Aqsa Flood was a preemptive strike – meant to break the American-Zionist project in this region.”  — Ihsan Ataya, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) official, speaking to The Cradle on 28 October 2023

Until recently, regional developments in West Asia could still be parsed through the old frameworks of isolated conflicts, bilateral rivalries, or proxy skirmishes. No longer. 

Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on 7 October 2023 was a strategic rupture that reset the rules of deterrence, legitimacy, and the acceptable use of force. Since that day, West Asia has transformed into a single, hyper-connected battlespace where borders blur, fronts overlap, and crises no longer unfold in isolation.

Everything since 7 October has operated within a new strategic equation. Major powers have scrambled to adjust their priorities, allies and adversaries have redrawn their lines, and familiar arrangements have begun to fray. 

The usual safeguards – diplomatic cover, economic pressure valves, even military deterrents – have eroded. The region is no longer a patchwork of separate flashpoints, but a volatile system where any single spark – a border incident, trade maneuver, or diplomatic shift – can trigger a chain reaction. What we are witnessing is the active remaking of the region’s balance of power, in real time.

Four axes, no hegemon

At the heart of this transformation is the emergence of four distinct centers of power: Iran, Turkiye, Saudi Arabia, and the Israeli occupation state. Each commands influence across multiple domains, but none has been able to translate that into uncontested dominance. Instead, the region is pulled between four gravitational fields, each shaping alliances, conflicts, and narratives.

Iran and Saudi Arabia wield energy resources that extend their reach beyond West Asia. Iran also commands loyalty from Shia populations and maintains long-standing partnerships with resistance movements. 

Turkiye and Iran are large, populous states with deep historical imperial roots, strategic geography, and expansive militaries. Saudi Arabia – and, to a lesser extent, Turkiye – also possess significant soft power, rooted in religious and cultural legitimacy. Israel, for its part, remains a military and technological leader, backed by a “special relationship” with Washington and an unconfirmed nuclear arsenal.

None of these powers, however, holds all the cards. Their simultaneous rise has prevented the emergence of a regional hegemon. Instead, they check each other’s advances in an unstable balance shaped by history, ideology, and ambition.

These four axes do not operate as formal alliances. They are fluid zones of influence that shape how states, movements, and even markets align. What matters is not fixed membership but the gravitational pull – the capacity to compel decisions, offer protection, impose costs, or shape narratives. And in the volatile aftermath of 7 October, that pull has only intensified.

This structure exists because none of these actors enjoys a decisive edge. Nor are they all equally accepted in the region. Influence alone is not enough; a power must be willing to act, and others must be willing to accept its leadership. 

No state in recent West Asian history has sustained all three traits long enough to become a hegemon. Instead, they maneuver to secure their turf or deny rivals supremacy. These competitions flare during upheaval – the Persian Gulf War, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Arab uprisings, and now, the post-Operation Al-Aqsa Flood rupture.

Most regional states now orbit one of these four axes. Riyadh leads many of the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, excluding Qatar and the UAE. Abu Dhabi a key member of the ‘Axis of Normalization’ has naturally tilted toward the Israeli camp. Resistance movements align with Iran. 

Qatar leans toward Turkiye, a relationship underpinned by their shared support for Muslim Brotherhood-linked movements across the region. Egypt, once a power in its own right, has largely fallen under Saudi sway.

The battle for Yemen’s south is a Gulf power play

Saudi–UAE competition has long been framed as a rivalry within the Gulf’s inner circle – two partners with diverging tactics, not clashing visions. That frame no longer holds. The UAE's normalization with Tel Aviv recast Abu Dhabi as an enabler of Israeli regional integration – not just a competitor to Riyadh, but a channel for Israeli expansion. 

This realignment has sharpened Saudi sensitivities. While Riyadh may overlap with Israel tactically, it does not accept Tel Aviv as a strategic arbiter. The concern is not Emirati–Israeli ties per se, but their functional depth – a fusion of Emirati capital and logistics with Israeli security expertise and global networks. That combination, Riyadh fears, could project power into Saudi Arabia’s own sphere.

This is especially acute in southern Yemen, where Abu Dhabi’s ambitions risk handing Tel Aviv a presence on Saudi Arabia’s southern flank. Riyadh views this not as regional jockeying but a direct threat to its national security. 

The Saudi position is clear: tactical overlap with Israel is tolerable to a point, but a UAE–Israel axis inside the Gulf is a red line. This has outgrown the bounds of a Gulf rivalry. It is now a clash between two distinct regional visions–one seeking to contain Israel’s expansion, the other enabling its entrenchment.

Tel Aviv’s regional project threatens friend and foe alike

For decades, Hezbollah’s late secretary-general Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah warned that weakening the Axis of Resistance would eventually endanger every state in the region – including those aligned with Washington. In a 2013 speech, Nasrallah stated:

“If Syria falls, Palestine is lost – and with it, the resistance in Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. If Syria falls to the US, Israel, and the takfiris, our region will enter a dark, brutal era. That is our assessment.”

A decade later, Tel Aviv’s regional conduct bears out that warning. Israel no longer limits its actions to a single front. It moves across Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, and Iran in concert, treating the region as a unified battlespace.

Recent events – setbacks for the resistance, Syria’s erosion, the expansion of Israeli operations – have made clear that Tel Aviv respects no boundaries, not even those of friendly governments. 

For Iran, the threat is direct and existential. Israeli officials routinely declare that dismantling the Islamic Republic is their strategic goal. That goal has been pursued through assassinations, sabotage, ‘color revolutions,’ proxy attacks, and now open war.

For Turkiye, the threat is strategic. Israel challenges Ankara’s influence in Syria and the Eastern Mediterranean, pushing alternative trade corridors that sideline Turkish geography. Syria, in particular, has become a theater where Israeli freedom of action clashes with Turkish security priorities.

For Saudi Arabia, the concern is structural. Tel Aviv’s attempt to rewrite regional rules threatens Riyadh’s autonomy and leadership. The greater danger lies in the emerging regional architecture – an order shaped to entrench Israeli dominance while sidelining Arab powers into subordinate roles.

Since 7 October, Tel Aviv has expanded its operational playbook: preemptive strikes, multi-front campaigns, and intensified deterrence. This has heightened the perception of threat across all major powers. 

That does not mean a new anti-Israel alliance is forming. But it does mean each actor – except Iran, which sees Israel as an inherent enemy – now views Israeli expansion as a constraint on their own strategic space.

What looms larger than open conflict is a strategic shift that could allow one actor to reshape the rules of engagement for the entire region.