We have always been faced with, at the very least, two Middle Easts. While political and social disparities in the region are longstanding, they are particularly astonishing today, and the growing chasm between the opposite sides of the binary marks a turning point. It now feels like we are living in two separate worlds that are a mere 3-hour flight apart.
In Gaza, over a million Palestinians face grappling with the specter of famine, and some cities elsewhere in the region are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on development.
Gaza has fallen prey to the deadly repercussions of a project dominated by the ideology of resistance. Its people and infrastructure are victims of specific policies that have failed to move beyond past conflicts and lay the foundations for a different future. Meanwhile, another Middle East is emerging, one in which peace has been prioritized in pursuit of stability and consolidating an environment conducive to technological progress.
This fault line was underlined by the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, which was more than just another moment in this conflict; it was the mirror image of the deep split between these two Middle Easts.
It is not a coincidence that Iran leads the tragic iteration of the Middle East facing up against the other Middle East led by moderate states, in what is an intense struggle between a camp driven by historical grievances that has adopted a discourse of ideology resilience and resistance, and the camp seeking a future founded on peace, prosperity, and global partnerships.
This disparity is not a result of factors outside our control but of opposite visions of the world and its relationships. The Iranian Middle East is built on building bridges between militias, sectarian leaders, military commanders, drug traffickers, and criminal masterminds. This Middle East sustains itself through perpetual conflict and contradiction and by mobilization and stirring fear and hatred. It is a Middle East that thrives on the collapse of societies and states, and by deliberately and premeditatedly crushing social structures to facilitate expansion and dominance.
On the other hand, the Gulf states adapted their policies to their pursuit of overcoming the technological and geopolitical obstacles to their strategy of becoming leading nations in the fields of technology and artificial intelligence. This is especially true for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, who are investing in stability, the de-escalation of conflicts, and the expansion of partnerships, in order to create an environment that draws global investment and talent, especially in the field of artificial intelligence.
Here, peace and stability are above politics; they are seen as vital requisites for building a post-oil economy. Their strategic objective is to create a friendly environment for developing AI chips locally, with the aim of finding a solution to US restrictions on the export of high-performance chips and meeting their needs for skilled workers in the field of artificial intelligence. Policy, here, is dictated by demands of modernizing and developing the economy, an existential challenge to these states.
The persistence and comprehensiveness of these developments are putting the region to an ongoing test, due to the size of the gap between artificial intelligence research and its practical application. This gap will not be bridged unless the region draws skilled workers in information technology and builds strategic partnerships to reinforce the adoption of artificial intelligence.
Accordingly, two contradictory strategies for yielding influence and achieving regional goals stand out in the complex Middle Eastern landscape. They reflect deeply divergent approaches to power.
One Middle East is building its foreign policy on the principles of soft power, allowing it to craft networks of comprehensive influence that combine diplomacy, economic and financial partnerships, and technological investment. That requires cooperation with the rest of the world and a conciliatory discourse that is focused on building influence through long-term relationships and averse to the use of force.
The other Middle East presents a sharp contrast. It seeks hard power and considers obstruction a strategic tool, as shown by the attack on October 7, 2023. The military operations in Gaza and the subsequent entry of militias from Lebanon and Iraq into the conflict, along with the escalation of alertness in the Red Sea, highlight this Iran-led Resistance Axis' penchant for direct and robust military interventions, through which it aims to assert dominance, ensure influence, and achieve the strategic objectives.
This contrast highlights a complex balance of power and the ongoing struggle for influence within the region. It is manifesting itself in two opposing approaches whose differences go beyond politics in the strict sense of the word. One emphasizes appeal and persuasion and chooses coercion and force. This split is above political agendas and tactics, or even strategic choices. It divides two sides with opposing value systems and approaches to the operation of society and the exercise of power. They have fundamentally contradictory views on the principles that should govern the relationship between states and citizens, international relations, and the pursuit of peace and prosperity.
As such, these complex dynamics sum up much of what is happening in the Middle East today. They are a window into these states’ identities, history, and social structures- the factors shaping the Middle East’s geopolitical divisions, which it seems cannot be solved through mere negotiations or political alliances.
