It brings Israel together with Arab countries.. Was the idea of ​​a Middle Eastern “NATO” nipped in its infancy?

With the approaching date of the expected visit of US President Joe Biden to the region, the controversy over the formation of the so-called "Arab NATO" or "Middle Eastern NATO" has returned.

American press sources stated that the Biden administration held a summit of senior officials from Israel and Arab countries to discuss coordination against Iranian missiles and drones, and the Chief of Staff of the Israeli Army Aviv Kohavi and his counterparts in some Arab countries participated in these meetings, which is the first time that high-ranking officers from Israel have met and Arab countries under American supervision.

And King Abdullah II of Jordan had said earlier, "Such a gathering can be made successful with like-minded countries, but the mission statement must be very clear, otherwise it will confuse everyone."

Abdullah II expressed his will that his country be a party to this prospective alliance, adding, "I will be one of the first people who will ratify the establishment of a Middle Eastern NATO."

The king noted that "besides security and military cooperation, a closer alliance in the Middle East can help meet the challenges arising from the Russian invasion of Ukraine, particularly with regard to energy and commodity prices."

American desire

The idea of ​​establishing a Middle Eastern alliance belongs to the American desire to rearrange the region's cards, as part of its efforts to focus its efforts to confront the challenges posed mainly by China and Russia at a lower level.

According to the American visions, a regional alignment that includes the Arab countries and Israel is the most prominent way to confront Iran's ambitions in the region.

It also paves the way for imposing solutions on many regional conflicts including the Palestinian issue, the Syrian crisis and the war in Yemen.

Regardless of the name or whether this alignment will take a structural form similar to military and political alliances, many movements and agreements in the region lead to this result, especially since the launch of the Abraham accords train sponsored by the administration of former US President Donald Trump, where relations witnessed Between the Emirates, Bahrain and Sudan there has been a remarkable development at the diplomatic, military and security levels.

However, this planned alliance in its structural form faces a number of challenges that may prevent it from becoming a practical reality. The statements of Arab officials about the idea contain contradictory visions and a loss of consensus.

In an interview with the Lebanese newspaper An-Nahar al-Arabi, Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman al-Safadi said, "NATO was not presented to us in the sense of what was said in the media. There is no talk about a regional defense system of which Israel is a part."

In response to a question about forming an Arab alliance with Israel to confront Iran, Safadi stressed that this is not on the table, adding that what was proposed regarding an Arab alliance in which Tel Aviv participates to confront Tehran was not heard by Jordan, nor was it presented to the Kingdom.

This explains Jordan's caution against entering into a direct military alignment to confront Iran, which is strengthening its presence in southern Syria on the border with Jordan.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry: The idea of ​​establishing an Arab military alliance similar to NATO is not on the table now (Reuters)

Differing positions

For his part, Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry said in a joint press conference with his Bahraini counterpart Abdul Latif Al-Zayani that the idea of ​​establishing an Arab military alliance similar to NATO during the US President's visit to Saudi Arabia is not on the table now.

He stressed that "the establishment of an alliance or a legal organization is something that should follow the path of consultation, and is not proposed at the present time."

The Gulf Cooperation Council is also witnessing divergence in attitudes towards dealing with Iran, the supposed enemy of the "NATO" to be formed.

While some components of the Council see Iran as an enemy and must be dealt with on this basis, other parties see dialogue with Tehran as the safest way to solve problems with it.

This is evident from the bilateral relations that bring together the Gulf states with Iran and the secret dialogues sponsored by countries such as Oman and Iraq between the two sides.

While Qatar and Oman enjoy good relations with Iran, and Kuwait maintains cautious relations with it, Saudi Arabia and the UAE tend to constantly express caution about Iranian nuclear ambitions and its rising influence in the region, but the need to stop the war in Yemen and prevent the collapse of Iraq is pushing for a behind-closed-doors dialogue with Tehran. .

At the same time, and despite the developments that the region has witnessed in the relationship between regional states in the post-Arab Spring revolutions and the resulting regional alignments, the level of improvement in relations is still in its infancy and is subject to the stage of restoring confidence between the regional parties.

Here, the traditional Egyptian position that has avoided entering into a direct alliance against Iran over the past years, and Cairo has maintained a level of balance in its relationship with regional parties.

Also, Tel Aviv's accession to the supposed alliance constitutes a major obstacle, given what this means of direct provocation to Iran, which sees Israel's presence in the Persian Gulf as a direct threat that calls for intervention.

This step is also opposed by Arab countries that are supposed to be part of this alliance, which may be implicit in the statements of the King of Jordan, who demanded that the alliance's mission be "very clear so as not to confuse anyone."

Haniyeh considers attempts to integrate Israel into the region as a plot targeting the resistance (Reuters)

The resistance refuses

Moreover, an alliance that might include Israel provokes the ire of the Palestinian and Lebanese resistance. The matter is clearly rejected by the resistance forces, which see the expansion of Arab relations with Israel or the emergence of military alliances with it as a threat to it.

Head of the Political Bureau of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), Ismail Haniyeh, denounced the normalization of relations between some Arab countries and Israel, describing it as "extremely dangerous," stressing that comprehensive resistance is the only strategic option to confront the Israeli occupation.

Haniyeh said, in a speech before the Islamic National Conference held in the Lebanese capital, that there is a plan underway to rearrange the region in line with the American-Israeli agenda, warning that "this conspiracy serves the Zionist enemy in its full endeavor to integrate it into the region to confront the resistance front."

Naim Qassem, Deputy Secretary-General of the Lebanese Hezbollah, also warned at the same conference that "the path of normalization is heading towards military alliances with the occupation entity."

He referred to the efforts of some Arab countries to bargain with the Israeli occupation to form military alliances with it, and said, "Israel believes that it will raise fears on the resistance front through threats, but I say that they are empty threats."

Statements by Hamas and Hezbollah officials indicate that these two parties consider the emergence of any regional alliance that includes Israel directed at them, of course, which will complicate the calculations of many Arab parties that have relations with Hamas and Hezbollah, and do not see them as an opponent that requires entering into military and security alliances that increase complex area.

These challenges reduce the opportunity to form this alliance, without denying the fact that relations between Arab countries and the Israeli occupation state have become a major feature of the security environment in the region, and may open the way for more cooperation and security and military partnerships.