The Israeli-Hamas “war” has dramatically changed the trajectory geopolitical affairs in the Middle East, with talk of a Palestinian state not this prevalent since the days of the failed Oslo Accords in the 90s. Hamas’ attack, and the subsequent response from Israeli forces in their destruction of Gaza, has served to create a window of political opportunity, as well as potential necessity, for certain actors in the region. All governments have their own strategic objectives and either act upon windows of opportunity to achieve them or act to create such windows to exploit. Hamas’ goals with Oct 7th were most likely to show they can hit Israel with a devastating direct attack, embarrassing the IDF militarily, as well as to take hostages in order to free important prisoners held in Israel.

Hamas also had ulterior motives of winning a propaganda war by treating their hostages verifiably well while Israeli forces are well known to brutalize Palestinian prisoners. If Hamas is able to survive the war, which they will (Israel claims to have killed around 12k Hamas militants, experts estimate the real number at 6-7k, and Hamas had 40k+ soldiers prior to this war and there are now many more angry young men radicalized by Israeli war planes and terrorism to join their cause) as eradicating a group like them is next to impossible, then they will claim victory regardless of the outcome. From a certain point of view as well, if this war ultimately leads to the creation of a Palestinian state with Hamas with a seat at the table in Gaza/Palestine (they’ve offered to de-militarize if a two-state solution is implemented, a major concession), which is by no means guaranteed or likely (The US and Israel want a reformed Palestinian Authority/PA leading Gaza) but is nonetheless possible, then that will also be seen as a major strategic win given the reality of stringent American and Israeli efforts to prevent such a state while proceeding with permanent military conflict and slow moving ethnic cleansing in hopes of stealing all Palestinian land someday.

Hamas ultimately launched Oct 7th—and an Iranian green-light was likely given—to prevent the American and Netanyahu regimes from going over the Palestinians’ heads by normalizing with the Saudis even without a settlement to the Israel-Palestine “conflict.” The climate regionally after waves of normalization in recent years (UAE, Morocco, Bahrain and Sudan in Trump’s Abraham Accords) was that Saudi Arabian diplomatic ties would be established even while the occupied territories persisted under Israeli control. The Israeli-Hamas War has changed that entirely, with the anti-Israel sentiment so strong regionally that the Saudis can’t possibly sell normalization with the Israelis to their people without the creation of a Palestinian state in the process. Iran and their proxy in Hamas then had shared goals with Oct 7th; if the Saudis and Israelis normalized without the creation of a Palestinian state, then Hamas would remain isolated in Gaza, with no end to the occupation in sight, while the Israelis and Saudis would score a huge geopolitical win by achieving normalization. Thereby making the region more hostile to long term Iranian geopolitical interests, favoring the West. This is why the war was launched on Oct 7th.

Despite rhetoric from Iran’s defacto King—Ali Khamenei—downplaying the possibility of Israel normalizing with Saudi Arabia, implying it would not resolve the crisis, which is true without the creation of a Palestinian state, the Israelis and Saudis normalizing would in fact be a significant strategic blow for Tehran, regardless if any Palestinian state comes from it or not. The geopolitical goals for planners in Tehran are to prevent Israeli-Saudi normalization and work to weaken American standing in the region via their proxy networks and growing influence in Western colonies like Iraq. If they don’t prevent that and Washington scores a diplomatic win by achieving normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia—the most significant country in the Middle East—then that’s a geopolitical loss for the Iranian empire, despite them re-establishing diplomatic ties with the Saudis last year which ignited much concern in Washington. There is still deep rooted mistrust between Riyadh and Tehran, as well as a desire to be the strongest power in the region, and you can bet Washington will do everything in its power to exploit this.

Which brings us to the goals of the corporate American regime and their clients in Israel: normalize Israel with Saudi Arabia, as well as other states backed by Western governments in the region who are on good terms with the Israelis, to contain the expansion of Iranian power, which invariably means more Chinese and Russian influence by extension. This would allow Washington an overarching role and control of the greater Middle East for at least the foreseeable future. With the shifting geopolitical landscape in the region, planners in Washington seem to be attempting to use the crisis to fast track Israeli normalization with the Saudis, which has been on hold since Oct 13th as the IDF’s current campaign was underway. The Saudis weren’t about to normalize with Israel while the majority of the Arab world was in unrest over the then new war on Gaza. As time has passed and people became more accustomed to new realities, the window opened once again, with Blinken and top US diplomats working overtime to meet with the Saudis, Israelis and other regional states in recent months in the hopes of achieving normalization. Which, at this point, is looking impossible without the Israeli concession of a Palestinian state.

The Israeli state wants nothing more than the eradication of Palestinians from all of their land, as do planners in Washington, if that can be achieved. The Israelis have no moderate position on this. Everyone from the far-right fascists to more centrist elements of Israeli politics fundamentally view Palestine as part of Israel. But even though the Israelis want to slaughter and forcibly displace all of Palestine, they are a rather small country and largely rely on their relations with the West to project power. Absent Western (mostly American) aid and political shielding, Israel cannot exist as a functioning state and their political leaders understand this. So they have to work within the constraints they’re under, as do their owners in America.

Empires simply can’t openly displace and murder hundreds of thousands to millions of people as was done throughout history until about 80 years ago. Therefore the American empire—via Israeli proxies—have to maneuver between the false narrative of wanting peace with the Palestinians, while maintaining permanent military confrontation and making conditions so unbearable in Palestine that the indigenous population flees into neighboring countries to make way for new Israeli settlements. The Israeli-Hamas War, as mentioned, has drastically changed the real time calculus of planners in Washington. In recent months the intellectual state priest and New York Times writer Thomas Friedman—about the closest you’ll get to a voice of the empire and who has been known to have close relations with the Democratic establishment—penned an article laying out what he viewed as the blueprint of the emerging “Biden Doctrine”. Friedman says he sees the Biden administration following this blueprint in a quest to check Chinese, Russian and Iranian interests, in turn cementing American primacy in the Middle East, a region known as the key source of strategic power given it supplies much (over 1/3) of the worlds energy and contains vital shipping lanes for global trade. The blueprint includes 3 steps.

First, a resolute stance on Iran and its proxies, including US military action against these forces (we’ve seen this from Yemen to Iraq and Syria). Second, a serious diplomatic initiative to establish a Palestinian state. Friedman suggests de-militarization so Palestine can never again harm Israel. Of course the thought of a de-militarized Israeli state that can’t harm Palestine or anywhere else is simply unthinkable, but we are perhaps seeing the initial stages of this diplomatic initiative with increasing rhetoric in recent weeks from top level US officials about the urgent need for a two-state solution. The last step, an expanded security and economic alliance between the US and Saudi Arabia. We are currently witnessing these efforts, with a couple different paths being pursued by the Americans and Saudis. Initially, any US-Saudi deal would come separate of events in Israel and the occupied territories, but a formal offer would be made to the Israelis exchanging Saudi normalization for “irrevocable” moves towards the creation of a Palestinian state. The US may be hoping that such an offer becomes an issue in Israeli politics, along side the bad public relations for Netanyahu’s government amidst attempts at deeply unpopular judicial reforms last year and the war on Gaza, in turn forcing the collapse of the regime. Paving the way for a more moderate Israeli Government that would be easier to work with, less of a problem for Washington, and more interested in possible concessions for Saudi normalization. The US doesn’t want its strategic interests held hostage by Israeli politics or Benjamin Netanyahu.

If normalization isn’t achieved but these deals (bilateral defense pact, US help in building a Saudi nuclear energy industry, and high-level sharing in AI and other emerging technologies) with the Saudis are, Biden would not land the historic Middle East settlement he’s been seeking in the wreckage of the Israeli-Hamas War, at least not immediately, but he would cement a strategic relationship with Riyadh that would keep the encroaching influence of Beijing and Moscow at bay. All parts of the potential deal involve the US giving vital strategic assistance to Saudi security. In place of a settlement to the 76 year Israeli-Palestine “conflict,” the Saudi monarchy is leveraging a bilateral deal to planners in Washington as a US win in their efforts to contain the Iranian empire and in their Neo-Cold War with China and Russia.

If Secretary of Stare Tony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan—the primary minds at work for US diplomacy—manage to bind Saudi Arabia to the US in a strategic alliance, in a way that marginalizes China and Russia in this part of the world, that’s a significant geopolitical win for Biden or any eventual successor. Even more significant would be a transformative regional settlement, which would be the biggest propaganda win for America since Clinton’s designed to fail Oslo Accords once again made the US Government appear benevolent on the international stage. Though, as mentioned,  one should bear in mind that any approved Palestinian state would be little more than a defacto rump state given the conditions of the negotiations with the US playing the lead mediating role. Simply put, if the US is allowed be involved in negotiations as a supposedly neutral party, when it’s been anything but since 1958, then there can be no political settlement that doesn’t favor their Israeli colony. Any state that results from these negotiations will likely be surrounded by Israeli military installations and settlements, effectively guaranteeing them control of Palestine’s resources. It would likely be demilitarized or ruled by the Palestinian Authority (PA)—an American and Israeli proxy in effect—as there have been reports from Friedman of Netanyahu and Israeli elites privately considering the possibility of a Palestinian state so long as it cannot effectively harm Israel. A recent bill passed in Israeli parliament suggests they’ll never accept a Palestinian state, but ultimately Washington controls the levers of power. At what point it becomes in America’s strategic interests to produce a Palestinian state remains to be seen, but I believe we’re getting closer, especially with China attempting to make diplomatic headway in a potential peace process recently by meeting with Hamas, Fatah, and other Palestinian leaders. Washington surely views  any Chinese meddling in Middle Eastern affairs as a threat to the empire.

But if this war has highlighted anything to students of geopolitics, it should be the vast importance of the American-Saudi alliance to US planners. They have to walk a tightrope so to speak with Riyadh. While they can exert a tremendous amount of pressure on Saudi Arabia, as they rely nearly exclusively on America to secure their sovereignty, and in fact do so in order to maintain imperial credibility, they also understand the implications and consequences of losing the support of the Saudi monarchy. Petrodollars are essentially US dollars (USD) paid to an oil-exporting country. They are the primary source of revenue for most OPEC countries, of which Saudi Arabia is the defacto leader, as well as other oil exporters. Oil exporters settle sales in USD because the dollar is the most widely used currency, making it easier for them to invest export proceeds.

The Saudis are wising up to their strategic value in the American empire and under Mohammed bin Salman have been exerting far more autonomy in their foreign affairs than at any other period since becoming an American colony shortly after WWII. We see this with Riyadh wanting to be at least on par with American colonies in the Philippines, South Korea and Japan—short of NATO’s Article 5 guarantee—but a much more stringent and formal commitment to the defense of the Saudi Kingdom. For the time being, the Saudis are content playing both sides in the Neo-Cold War, expanding relations with the Chinese and Russians as well, but remaining formally in the American and Western camp. Their goals are to build Saudi Arabia into a regional power one day capable of exerting its own hegemony over the Middle East. This is only possible with more strategic autonomy, which will only continue to grow long term despite serious American headway in the short term at reaffirming Riyadh’s commitment to the empire.

Personally, I think we’re beginning to understand exactly what the Biden Doctrine is. For those unfamiliar, American Presidents tend to have doctrines guiding their foreign policy for the empire in its quest for global domination. These doctrines then become fundamentalist religious principles, in effect, for future administrations to proceed forward with. Some prior doctrines of prime importance being the Monroe Doctrine that formally committed the US to barring foreign intervention in the Americas (i.e. to dominate the Western hemisphere), the Roosevelt Doctrine (corollary) that expanded on the Monroe Doctrine by allowing the US to intervene in the internal affairs of any Latin American country who stepped out of line, the Truman Doctrine that committed the US to the defense of liberal democracies (meaning the “western world” against the “communist” devils), the Eisenhower Doctrine that committed the US to the defense of any Middle East country that requested its assistance in face of the “Soviet threat” (used to simply promote US/Western influence across the region and beat back Nasser’s Arab nationalism that threatened Western oil supplies), the Kennedy and Johnson Doctrine’s that expanded upon Eisenhower’s by committing the US to the defense of Latin America against “international communism” (i.e. defense of corporate America’s interest in stealing resources that were being threatened by the revolutionary example of Castro in Cuba, which could spread to others in the region who might get similar ideas).

The Nixon doctrine stated that allies (colonies) would be in charge of their own security but that the US could act as an umbrella of defense when requested. A decade later the Carter Doctrine formally committed the US military to the defense of shipping lanes and corporate America’s oil supplies in the Middle East, while the Reagan Doctrine would commit the US to providing overt and covert support to anti-Communist guerillas and militias in an effort to destabilize Soviet colonies and anti-western governments to win the Cold War. More recent doctrines guiding US foreign policy are the Clinton Doctrine that essentially states the US will act multilaterally when it can but must resort to unilateral measures when key interests are at stake. The Bush II Doctrine expanded on the unilateral aspects of Clinton’s and Carter’s, effectively giving the US the ability to act more unilaterally and even launch preemptive war, as seen in the Afghan and Iraq wars, as well the unilateral decision to pull America out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which greatly expanded the Neo-Cold War that essentially no one knew or cared about at the time. Obama’s Doctrine was basically a re-branding of Clinton’s, emphasizing the need for diplomacy regarding indirect threats and humanitarian crises, but preserving the unilateral resort to force if necessary for key interests. The Trump Doctrine, if there was one, is essentially the idea of putting corporate American interests first, above all others, regardless of the time or place, which runs counter to other doctrines and complicates the US Governments strategic objectives (“Is America more significant at all times and is only caring about our interests an idea that will make us stronger or is it of vital importance to the empire that Europe and key allies are in our corner?” is a real debate in Washington these days).

These doctrines are a large part of why we see so much continuity from each administration—liberal or conservative—in terms of foreign policy. They are simply carrying on where the last one left off, and we see this explicitly with Biden expanding Trump’s trade war with China, despite softer rhetoric than his neoconservative counterparts, and carrying forward policies destined to clash with the expanding Chinese empire. In my opinion, Biden’s doctrine is centered on reaffirming US global leadership and formally committing America to the containment of adversaries in regions indispensable to the empire—Europe, Middle East, East Asia—by enhancing relationships with crucial allies (colonies), as he’s done in Europe with NATO expansion and bolstering US troop levels to combat Russian advances, as well as Asia with expanding security and economic partnerships with the Philippines, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan to contain China. By then deepening security and economic integration with the Saudis, Emirates and Israelis to contain Iranian expansion, he’s essentially building on Carter’s doctrine of defending key interests (oil/shipping lanes) in the Middle East, but effectively making it global with hawkish policies against China and Russia. In case it’s not clear, but Biden’s Doctrine is essentially an unspoken commitment to the Neo-Cold War, driving us all closer to WWIII.

Ultimately the corporate American regime seems to be using the war to try and wrestle back some geopolitical good-will in the Middle East region, and internationally, while absolutely killing what little they have left at the same time. It’s a risky strategy but one America forces itself to take by adhering to the state religion of market expansion for US corporations. While Biden could end the war on Gaza with a phone call, it’s not one he or any American leader is prepared to make. Besides all the material benefits to corporate America from their Israeli colony, making a shift in policy not in their interests, planners in Washington also don’t want to be seen dictating to their friends. They want every ally (colony) in the empire thinking it’s truly a partnership of choice and not of coercion, quite similar to owner-worker relations. Hence, they can’t really afford to dictate to Israel and risk appearing to not have their back without it potentially hurting other relationships who may fear the same being done to them. After all, America is more committed to Israeli defense than anywhere else besides maybe Europe and North America. If they won’t defend Israel to the end, it could serve to weaken US credibility with allies in strategically vital regions like the Indo-Pacific, which are desperately needed to contain the expansion of Chinese power. Which is why the US Government has to be careful with how they handle this from their point of view.

There seems to be real concern in Washington that the US and Israel have failed to effectively communicate the narrative and lost the propaganda war to Iran, Hamas and the entire Axis of Resistance (Tehran’s proxies). Not to mention Colombia having severed diplomatic ties with Israel due to the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Previously Israel’s best friends in Latin America, with bilateral trade, military and technological cooperation deepening in recent years, these developments have surely raised eyebrows in Washington. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister, akin to the ones placed on Vladimir Putin, and this forced America to threaten the court itself with sanctions. The Egyptians—Israel’s oldest ally in the region—have even joined South Africa’s genocide case against the Netanyahu regime and have been increasingly critical of Israeli military operations on their border. Operations which left an Egyptian soldier dead and riddled with Israeli bullets, further straining relations. US planners are taking none of this lightly and seem to be hedging their bets with the hopes of achieving something tangible out of this mess of their own making.

There are a couple ways this could all play out. The first possibility being a ceasefire reached in the coming weeks to months that ultimately leads to a two-state solution with the US-backed PA ruling Palestine or a joint entity with the PA in the West Bank and potentially a demilitarized Hamas leading Gaza. This is really the ultimate best case scenario for American propaganda purposes and would score immense amounts of goodwill globally for the US, despite the reality of what would be a Palestinian rump state. This is the most realistic pro-Palestine outcome but not what I expect to happen, as the US likely won’t openly force an unwanted ceasefire on the Israelis, with other colonies and credibility in mind. Republican hawks already lambasted Biden for publicly conditioning offensive US weapons to the full scale assault on Rafah, saying other allies surely see this and are possibly wondering if America will have their back, highlighting the thought process behind strategic planning in Washington. But the fact is Biden never stopped sending weapons, only briefly pausing a small selection of arms for a couple weeks in the spring. Israel and the US won’t allow an armed Palestinian state next to Israel—not anymore after Oct 7th. Hamas’ actions, while potentially bringing us closer to a two-state solution, have really served to weaken their position in negotiations. Negotiations mediated and essentially controlled by the empire (America) overseeing the ethnic cleansing operation. Given the limits of the negotiations (US as lead mediator) and Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, we are now at a point where Palestine will likely have even less of a chance to defend itself in the future, regardless of a two-state solution or not.

Another possibility, one that I personally believe is most likely to happen and seems to be occurring before our eyes, is that the conflict turns into a perpetual forever war.

The US doesn’t oppose the Israeli assault on Gaza; they just don’t enjoy American prestige taking a monumental beating and the abject public relations failure of this war. As mentioned, US planners don’t want to risk losing so much good-will that is jeopardizes the empire needed to contain a rising China. In this scenario a ceasefire would likely be proposed at some point that ends the war, potentially even a two-state solution, but Israel and US refuse to accept the possibility of a demilitarized Hamas after Oct 7th and remain steadfast in their commitment to prevent Hamas from having a seat at the table. Hamas cannot be eradicated but are nonetheless forced underground by ongoing Israeli military presence over the next several months, through the rest of the year, and possibly into the next. Hamas would continue to target Israeli controlled territories in a grueling guerrilla war that expends plenty of lives on both sides, as well as many more civilians. Once the inevitable ceasefire and end of the fighting is reached, the Israeli occupied territories are likely to be ruled by the PA in Gaza and the West Bank, as is desired by the Americans, who really have the only say here. This could very well mean illegal Israeli settlements in at least northern Gaza, where the far right fascists in Israeli government want the IDF to serve as permanent protection, while then working with the PA to maintain order in the rest of Gaza akin to the West Bank.

Another possibility being discussed in real time by officials from Washington and London to Cairo and Doha, is an international “peacekeeping” (aka occupation) force in Gaza. Provided by Western/Israeli-backed Arab countries like Bahrain, Jordan, Morocco, etc. These forces will undoubtedly be seen by Palestinians as American-Israeli mercenaries, much like the PA are understood as western puppets, and resistance will only grow and strengthen. We will return to where we were prior to the Israeli settlement retreat in 2005 and Hamas’ takeover in Gaza from 2006-2007. Where Israel is essentially directly occupying Gaza via proxies on the ground, not indirectly as seen the last couple decades, and we’ll then be right back where we are now in another few years to a decade or two where the Israeli state is massacring Gaza, displacing its population further, and taking more land that they and the corporate American regime deem valuable. US planners likely want Hamas resistance to maintain as an underground military force, regardless if Palestinian statehood is achieved or not, so that in the event of future threats from Gaza, the Israelis can exercise the option of “mowing the lawn” as they call it. While maintaining the occupation and building illegal settlements in the West Bank, with increased expansion in times of major “conflict” between Israel and Palestine.

The ethnic cleansing and genocide of Palestinians isn’t meant to be an operation that happens in one grand event like Hitlers German-Nazi genocide of Jewish people, gypsies, ethnic minorities and others, but more akin to America’s Indian Wars from the early 1600s that lasted nearly three centuries. Where there’s upticks of violence during major conflicts (Cherokee wars, Seminole wars, Navajo wars, Apache wars, and the War of 1812 in America for example/Arab-Israeli war of 1948, Six-Day war, Lebanon wars, and the Gaza wars in Israel-Palestine for example) and other times of slow moving violence and ethnic cleansing when there are no major wars. Resulting in further reduction in land and resources for the indigenous population, who are displaced and segregated into tiny enclaves of little value, surrounded by hostile military installations and settlements with little to no control of what few resources they have, and where they possess no real freedom or self determination. Absent an international shift forcing a two-state solution that’s only possible if more countries are willing to sever diplomatic ties with the Israelis (it’s not just western powers who refuse to hold Israel to account but also eastern powers in China, Russia and India who all maintain relations in trade, security, tourism, etc), which can only come from nonviolent civil disobedience and direct action from concerned citizens bringing forth a change in their governments policies, then I fear America will never be incentivized, either domestically or internationally, to end the Israeli conquest of Palestine. A tragedy of immense proportions that our parents and grandparents bore witness to, that we are observing in real time and that future generations will wonder what we were doing—if anything—to try and stop it.

The post America, Israel-Palestine, and The Goals of Empire appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.