In recent months, the phrase “regional arrangements” has gained prominence in political discourse. At first glance, it may suggest positive intentions—an effort to reorganize regional dynamics in ways that serve the aspirations of local peoples and states. Yet this optimistic façade conceals a far more troubling reality.
These so-called arrangements remain vague and undefined, lacking any clear grounding in legal, humanitarian, or international norms. In practice, they align closely with the strategic objectives of their principal advocates—chiefly, Washington and Tel Aviv—who seek to impose them regardless of the destabilizing consequences for the region.
Two points warrant emphasis.
First, the term “regional arrangements” has been consistently pushed by the United States and Israel, underlining their shared vision for reshaping the Middle East. Second, its widespread use began during Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, followed by its unprecedented crackdown in the occupied West Bank, efforts to neutralize Hezbollah’s military capacity, the decimation of the Syrian army, and the direct confrontation with Iran.
Together, these developments mark the early stages of a broader project now taking shape under the banner of “regional arrangements” or a “New Middle East.” Its key components appear to include:
-
Resolving the Palestinian issue along lines dictated by Israel, with full American backing. At best, this envisions a nominal Palestinian “state” stripped of real sovereignty, fragmented territorially, demilitarized, and wholly subordinated to Israeli security control—even less viable than the Deal of the Century proposed in 2020.
-
Rendering Gaza uninhabitable, with reconstruction premised on the forced displacement of its population to Egypt, Jordan, or elsewhere, without a political future for the Strip, which is nominally half of the anticipated Palestinian state.
-
The total dismantling of Palestinian resistance groups, particularly Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and precluding Hamas from any future governance role. Notably, this vision sidelines the Palestinian Authority (PA), despite its status as the internationally recognized representative of the Palestinian people.
-
The annexation of large portions of the West Bank—at least one-third—under formal Israeli sovereignty, to be incorporated into Israel in a future phase.
-
The complete demilitarization of Hezbollah, transforming it into a purely political party within Lebanon's internal system, with no military arm or strategic deterrent capability.
-
Deepened Israeli surveillance and control over Syria to prevent it—or any other regional state—from posing a future threat to Israel. This includes continued occupation of parts of Syrian territory and the use of minority protection, especially for the Druze in Suwayda, as a pretext for direct military intervention at will.
-
Preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, including through recent Israeli strikes reportedly targeting key Iranian nuclear sites. Further military operations by Israel or the United States remain on the table should upcoming negotiations reach a complete impasse.
This brings us to a central and urgent question: What is the ultimate purpose of these measures, which together form the backbone of the proposed “regional arrangements”?
In my view, the ultimate goal is to systematically embed Israel into the regional framework—not merely as a participant, but as a dominant actor capable of steering the region’s future in alignment with its own interests. All of this is to unfold within the broader architecture of continued American hegemony over the Middle East.
Given this increasingly transparent landscape, and the concrete steps being taken by both Washington and Tel Aviv to realize this vision, it is imperative for the Arab world—particularly its key states—to formulate a coordinated response strategy. Such a plan must aim to neutralize the negative fallout of these arrangements and protect the national security of each Arab state.
The Middle East is now entering an unprecedented phase, and as such, any Arab plan must be formulated urgently. These designs will not wait, and delay will only compound their risks.
I believe that the core principles of such a counter-strategy should include the following:
-
Making Israel’s integration into the region conditional on a just resolution of the Palestinian question. This must involve an immediate halt to the war on Gaza, a stop to annexation efforts in the West Bank, and the launch of the Arab-Egyptian reconstruction plan for Gaza tied to a credible political horizon for a two-state solution.
-
Categorically rejecting any plans for the forced displacement of Palestinians from Gaza to Egypt or elsewhere, and countering the early Israeli steps currently laying the groundwork for such an outcome.
-
Conducting an in-depth review of Washington and Tel Aviv’s vision of “regional arrangements.” While some elements may be open for discussion, they must not compromise national sovereignty or regional security.
-
Demanding that Israel’s nuclear arsenal be addressed in any future framework concerning nuclear non-proliferation or disarmament in the region, especially if similar demands are placed on other regional actors.
In conclusion, the notion of “regional arrangements” is not a neutral or benevolent concept—it is the rhetorical veil for a deeply strategic, politically motivated project designed to consolidate Israeli dominance under American sponsorship.
Arab states must act with clarity and urgency to ensure that their sovereignty, stability, and long-term interests are not sacrificed under the illusion of peace or modernization.
*The writer is the deputy director of the Egyptian Centre for Strategic Studies (ECSS).
Short link: