A Strategic Exercise: What If We Were Facing the Worst Possible Scenario for the Middle East?

Methodology

This study distinguishes between three levels: documented historical facts, inferences drawn from them, and hypotheses proposed to test a particular explanation. No inference is therefore presented as a definitive truth; rather, each remains subject to revision in light of new evidence, documents, and events, preserving the study’s character as an inquiry and making it an exercise in strategic thinking.

A Note of Caution

This is an exercise in strategic planning that proposes a hypothesis and then examines its potential consequences if it is correct. This kind of thinking resembles that employed by military institutions and research centers when developing risk scenarios, where the question is not: “Is this happening?” but rather: “What if it were happening? And what would the outcome be?”

The Hypothesis

What appears to be a series of disparate crises in the Middle East is not a set of independent events, but interconnected links within a long-term project to reshape the region politically, economically, and geographically.

This study assumes that this project is directed by a single state through a limited network of centers of influence and decision-makers, which may include governments, lobbying groups, elite networks, or organizations with transnational influence. Within this imaginary scenario, some might envisage roles for entities that are the subject of public debate, such as Freemasonry, groups described as “global elites” or the “Illuminati,” political lobbying groups, or movements with global Zionist orientations.

The hypothesis assumes that the mechanism of operation does not depend on all participants knowing the entire plan, but rather on the “need-to-know” principle: only a very limited number have access to the full picture, while each level operates on the information it needs to perform its role, believing that it serves political, economic, or security objectives specific to its institution or state.

Thus, the plan does not require thousands of officials or employees to know the ultimate objective. It is sufficient for a limited number of decision-makers to possess the complete vision, while the remaining institutions act in a seemingly ordinary manner, driven by their interests or immediate assignments.

From this standpoint, the study does not view wars, crises, and alliances as separate events, but assumes—for analytical purposes only—that they may be successive stages in a process of reshaping the regional order toward a larger strategic objective.

The Hypothesized Ultimate Objective

According to this hypothesis, the ultimate objective is not merely to win a war, overthrow a regime, or expand a state’s borders, but to reshape the geopolitical and economic order in the Middle East in a way that changes global balances of power for decades to come.

The study assumes that the path to this objective runs through direct or indirect control over the world’s most important arteries of trade and energy: the Strait of Hormuz, Bab al-Mandab, and the Suez Canal.

Whoever possesses the capacity to influence these passages possesses considerable capacity to influence the movement of oil and gas, supply chains, shipping rates, and international trade, and consequently the entire global economy.

The hypothesis assumes that recurring crises, regional wars, and security disturbances are not ends in themselves, but means of redrawing the map of influence so that the global economic order becomes more dependent on a new center of power.

At the culmination of this scenario, the study imagines Israel announcing a new phase of its political project, which it regards as the fulfillment of its historical and religious vision. This includes announcing the project of “Greater Israel” while simultaneously seeking to implement the project of building the Temple, after the regional environment has changed in ways that make opposition to this transformation more difficult.

The study further assumes that this transformation is not confined to the religious or geographical dimension, but extends to the economic dimension: control over global maritime passages becomes an instrument for influencing energy markets, commodity prices, and trade flows, and thus the balances of the international economy.

In this scenario, military dominance is not regarded as the ultimate objective, but as a means of attaining global economic and political influence, based on controlling the flow of energy, trade, and finance, granting the new center of power an unprecedented capacity to influence states’ decisions and economies.

How Does the Transformation Begin?

This study assumes that major transformations in history do not usually begin with an explicit declaration, but take shape through a long series of cumulative events, such that each event appears separate from the others and acquires its meaning only when the full picture is considered.

In this hypothetical scenario, the Israeli project—if it does indeed exist—is based not on military victory alone, but on reshaping the surrounding political, economic, and religious environment, until what was impossible in the past becomes an established reality in the future.

The First Stage: Exhausting the Regional Environment

The region begins to enter a prolonged spiral of wars, conflicts, and economic crises, such that surrounding states become more preoccupied with preserving their internal stability than with major regional projects.

According to the hypothesis, this stage leads to the depletion of armies and military capabilities, the exhaustion of financial reserves, rising debt and economic dependence on external actors, a decline in states’ capacity to engage in prolonged conflicts, and a shift in priorities from regional issues to domestic crises.

The Second Stage: Reshaping Alliances

After years of attrition, old alliances begin to unravel, and new alliances emerge, based more on economic and security interests than on ideological slogans.

At this stage, normalization, security cooperation, and joint economic projects become routine after having been rejected by the public.

The Third Stage: Reengineering the Economy

The study assumes that the focus of conflict gradually shifts from control over territory to control over the economy.

The objective becomes control over energy routes, ports, maritime passages, supply chains, transport and logistics networks, and data and technology.

Whoever has the capacity to manage these networks possesses influence that exceeds the limits of conventional military power.

The Fourth Stage: Reshaping Consciousness

The hypothesis holds that any major historical transformation also requires a transformation in societies’ consciousness.

It therefore envisages the years preceding the final announcement witnessing a gradual change in political, media, and cultural discourse, such that ideas once considered beyond discussion become part of public debate, then gradually become a reality accepted by segments of the international community.

The Fifth Stage: The Moment of Announcement

At the culmination of this scenario, the study imagines the Israeli leadership announcing entry into a new historical phase, describing it as the fulfillment of a long-awaited national or religious vision.

According to the hypothesis, this may include announcing a new political project or taking steps connected to the religious status of Jerusalem, as the culmination of a long course of transformations rather than its beginning.

In this reading, the objective is not merely to expand regional influence, but to seek to consolidate an economic and political position that makes Israel a pivotal actor in trade, energy, and technology, benefiting from a regional reality reshaped through years of crises and transformations.

An Additional Assumption

To push the testing of the scenario to its furthest extent, the study assumes that the great powers, despite their public rivalry, do not act in this matter as conflicting parties. Rather, they treat the hypothesized project as compatible with their long-term strategic interests, whether through direct support, turning a blind eye, or managing balances in ways that allow the project’s stages to continue.

The hypothesis adds another possibility: the existence of elite networks, transnational organizations, lobbying groups, and centers of influence that help create a degree of alignment among the interests of the great powers. Coordination would thus not necessarily take place directly among all governments, but through influential circles in politics, economics, the media, and finance.

In this scenario, it is not assumed that all members of these networks work toward a single objective or know the full picture. Rather, each party acts according to what it believes serves its interests, while these interests gradually converge in a direction that serves the larger project.

The hypothesis holds that this pattern of convergence is not new, but extends to pivotal historical junctures, such as the international support that accompanied the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 and its early recognition by major powers such as the United States and the Soviet Union, followed by the subsequent development of its relations with other countries, including China. In this imaginary scenario, this is viewed as one of the indicators that proponents of the hypothesis might interpret as the beginning of a long-term international convergence, rather than merely independent political decisions.

The study also assumes that some regional governments may be aware of parts of this trajectory or adapt to it on the basis of their own interests, while the peoples remain unaware of the full picture, because each stage appears to be a response to its immediate circumstances rather than part of a long-term project.

The Point of Culmination

According to this hypothetical scenario, the hypothesized project would not reach its culmination with the outbreak of wars, the formation of alliances, or the redrawing of maps of influence, but at the moment when the new reality becomes so firmly established that announcing the ultimate objective amounts more nearly to acknowledging what has already been achieved of it.

The study assumes that long years of military attrition, economic transformations, the reshaping of alliances, and changes in balances of power would have prepared the regional and international environment such that surrounding states’ capacity to change the course becomes limited compared with what it had been previously.

At this moment, the hypothesis imagines Israel announcing its transition to a new phase that it regards as the culmination of its national and religious vision. This may include announcing an expansionist political project, steps connected to Jerusalem’s status, or the project of building the Temple, as—in this hypothetical narrative—the fulfillment of what supporters of this project regard as prophecies or historical promises.

The study holds that the most dangerous aspect of this scenario is not the announcement itself, but its coming at a time when balances of power, maritime passages, energy routes, political alliances, and economic reality have already been reshaped, such that political or military opposition has less influence on changing the outcomes.

The pivotal event is not the announcement of the project, but the full formation of the environment that makes this announcement possible and sustainable.

What Comes Next?

If we assume—for the purposes of this thought exercise—that this scenario has materialized, the region would face not the end of a conflict, but the birth of a new regional and international order in which the very concept of power is redefined.

History teaches us that global dominance has not always been tied to geographical area or population size.

Great Britain, a small island compared with the continents it ruled, was able to extend its influence over vast parts of the world not because it possessed the largest army everywhere, but because it skillfully employed other elements of power: command of the seas, control over ports, trade routes, finance, intelligence networks, alliances, and trading companies, until it became capable of influencing states thousands of kilometers away.

In this hypothetical scenario, the study assumes that the hypothesized project seeks to apply a similar logic, but with the instruments of the twenty-first century.

Instead of occupying countries militarily, the objective becomes control over the strategic nodes on which the global economy depends. Instead of deploying armies everywhere, influence becomes grounded in control over maritime passages, energy routes, global ports, supply chains, technology and data, the financial system, and networks of security and political alliances.

Control over these critical nodes then becomes more consequential than direct control over the territories themselves.

In this reading, the hypothesis envisages that Israel—after having achieved its political and religious objectives according to this scenario—does not seek to build an empire in the traditional sense, but to consolidate a position that makes it a principal center within the network of the global economy, benefiting from its geographical location, the reshaping of the regional environment, and its influence in the vicinity of the most important trade and energy routes.

At this point, power is no longer measured solely by the number of tanks or aircraft, but by the capacity to influence energy prices, trade flows, supply chains, investments, and states’ economic decisions.

Just as the secret of the British Empire’s power lay not in the size of the island from which it originated, but in its ability to control the critical nodes of global trade, this study assumes that any project of domination in the twenty-first century—if one exists—will depend not on occupying the world, but on controlling the keys that make the world dependent on it.

The Study’s Questions

This hypothesis does not aim to persuade the reader that it is the truth, but to test it by reading the events of the past century as though they were parts of a single picture, then asking: Could they be interconnected, or is this connection merely an illusion created by the mind after the events occurred?

If this hypothesis is correct, can major historical junctures—such as the Sykes–Picot Agreement, the Balfour Declaration, the fall of the Ottoman state, the establishment of Israel in 1948, the wars of 1948, 1967, and 1973, the peace agreements, and the wars in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, through to the current conflicts—be reread as successive stages in a long-term project, or does each event have its own independent explanation and particular circumstances?

Did the transition from one stage to another follow a single strategic direction, or was it merely a historical succession dictated by the circumstances of each era?

If the hypothesized objective is to reshape the Middle East, what signs should have appeared over the past hundred years? Were balances of power consistently shifting toward a single center? Were political and economic transformations serving a recurring strategic objective? Did maps of influence change cumulatively or randomly? Did control over maritime passages and energy become more important than direct control over territory?

Conversely, what events weaken this hypothesis? Are there major decisions that run counter to this trajectory? Did projects fail that should have succeeded if the plan existed? Do disagreements among the great powers reveal the absence of any unified project? Can what occurred over the past century be explained through the logic of balancing interests, competition among states, and political mistakes, without the need to posit a comprehensive plan?

The study suggests that readers should seek not only evidence supporting the hypothesis, but also evidence that might refute it, because a hypothesis that cannot be tested or falsified is not a scientific hypothesis, but merely a belief.

The real value of this study therefore lies not in reaching a definitive answer, but in training readers to reread history critically, connect events without lapsing into categorical certainty, examine patterns without neglecting contrary evidence, and distinguish between what can be established and what remains within the realm of possibility.

Over the past hundred years, was the Middle East experiencing a series of separate crises, or was it—if this hypothesis is correct—gradually moving toward a new reality whose full contours have yet to become clear?

Competing Hypotheses

This study presents a single hypothetical proposition, but does not exclude other explanations of events. The wars and transformations witnessed by the Middle East over the past century may have resulted from states’ competition over interests, political mistakes, or economic changes, without a unified project. Testing the hypothesis and comparing it with alternatives therefore remains an essential part of the method.

Indicators That Support or Weaken the Hypothesis

If the hypothesis is correct, recurring indicators would be expected to appear, such as a shift in influence toward control over maritime passages and energy, the continued weakening of regional powers, and changes in alliances that serve a single center of power. If, however, the facts reveal contrary trends or fundamental contradictions, this weakens the hypothesis and calls for its reconsideration.

Why the Middle East?

This scenario assumes that the Middle East is not merely a geographical region, but a meeting point of the three continents, containing the most important energy reserves and maritime passages that affect the global economy, in addition to its religious and historical significance. Thus, if there is a project to reshape the global order, this region may be its point of departure or center of gravity.

The Study’s Timeline

The study relies on a sequential reading of the events of the past hundred years, beginning with the end of the Ottoman state, proceeding through the Balfour Declaration, the establishment of Israel, the Arab–Israeli wars, the peace agreements, and the wars in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, through to current developments. This reading does not aim to establish a necessary interconnection, but to test whether these events represent separate crises or can be explained—within the hypothesis—as cumulative stages in a single trajectory.

What Can Societies Do?

Whatever the nature of the transformations underway in the Middle East, societies retain the capacity to influence their future. Building critical awareness, refusing to accept any narrative without scrutiny, strengthening education and scientific research, bolstering local economies, supporting institutions of good governance, and strengthening regional cooperation are all factors that enhance the capacity of states and societies to confront challenges and adapt to changing circumstances.

From the perspective of faith, history is not governed by human will alone; rather, its events unfold within constant divine patterns, grounded in the principles that change begins within societies themselves, that injustice and corruption do not endure, and that alternation among nations is an enduring pattern in history.

﴿وَتِلْكَ الْأَيَّامُ نُدَاوِلُهَا بَيْنَ النَّاسِ﴾ (And those days We alternate among the people.) [آل عمران: ١٤٠]

Thus, awareness, reform, righteous action, and a return to the values of justice and truth constitute essential elements in any project of renewal and of regaining the capacity to shape the future.