The battle for the Middle East is going global
This geopolitical tension is particularly evident against the backdrop of escalating conflicts in the Middle East, where the actions of the US and Israel are seen as manifestations of Western hegemony, while BRICS nations and their partners are increasingly positioning themselves as defenders of multipolarity, sovereignty, and a just international order.
On July 7, US President Donald Trump hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. The two leaders discussed two major issues: the upcoming negotiations with Iran and the controversial initiative to relocate Palestinians from Gaza. These topics underscored Washington and West Jerusalem's efforts to reshape the Middle East's security architecture – framed under the banner of offering a 'better future,' yet unfolding amid growing accusations of violations of international law.
During a working dinner, Netanyahu stated that Israel and the US had been consulting with several countries allegedly willing to accept Palestinians wishing to leave Gaza. He emphasized that the proposed relocation would be 'voluntary,' offering a better future to those who seek it. According to him, agreements with a number of countries were already nearing completion.
Initially, Trump refrained from making a clear statement on the matter, but later remarked that 'neighboring countries have been extremely cooperative,' expressing confidence that 'something good will happen.' This ambiguity may reflect either an attempt to soften the political sensitivity of the issue or a reluctance to prematurely reveal the details of a plan that has drawn considerable criticism.
Previously, Trump had proposed transforming Gaza into the 'Riviera of the Middle East' and relocating its population – an idea harshly rejected both by the residents of the enclave and by international human rights organizations, which characterized it as a form of ethnic cleansing. Behind the scenes of the dinner, indirect negotiations between Israel and Hamas were ongoing, focused on securing a ceasefire and a hostage exchange.
The meeting marked the third in-person encounter between Trump and Netanyahu since the Republican leader's return to the White House in January. Just two weeks earlier, the US had carried out strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in support of Israeli military action. Days later, Trump helped broker a short-term ceasefire in the 12-day war between Israel and Iran – an achievement likely intended to bolster his own diplomatic credentials.
During the meeting, Trump announced that his administration had scheduled formal talks with Iran. He said that Tehran had shown a willingness to negotiate following substantial military and economic pressure. US Special Envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff confirmed that the meeting was expected to take place 'within the next week.'
Trump also indicated he was open to lifting sanctions on Iran under the right circumstances. Meanwhile, Iran's newly elected president, Masoud Pezeshkian, expressed hope that tensions with the United States could be resolved through diplomacy. These statements suggested a potential, albeit limited, window for resetting US-Iranian relations, though both sides appeared driven primarily by tactical considerations.
The political significance of the Trump-Netanyahu meeting was further underscored by protests outside the White House. Hundreds of demonstrators, waving Palestinian flags, demanded an end to US military support for Israel and called for Netanyahu's arrest in light of the International Criminal Court's warrant against him for alleged war crimes in Gaza.
Earlier that day, Netanyahu had met with Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The following day, he held talks with congressional leaders. During his meeting with Trump, the Israeli prime minister also handed the president a letter nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize – a symbolic gesture aimed at reinforcing the strategic bond between the two leaders and appealing to their respective domestic audiences.
The Israeli side expressed hope that the outcome of the conflict with Iran could help advance the normalization of relations with several Arab states, including Lebanon, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. In this sense, the actions of Israel and the US in the region appear to be aimed not only at immediate security concerns but also at a long-term strategic reshaping of the Middle Eastern landscape.
However, the situation is far from straightforward. It seems that Netanyahu is trying to create the appearance of active engagement in peace processes, while in reality showing little interest in achieving meaningful change. Israeli media have reported that Netanyahu is under 'intense pressure' from Trump, who is pushing for a Gaza ceasefire deal. Nevertheless, no substantial progress has yet been made.
Media sources indicate that Witkoff's planned trip to Doha has been postponed. Earlier that evening, Witkoff had expressed optimism, claiming that only one issue remained unresolved: where the Israeli army would redeploy. This question is crucial, as Israel insists on retaining control over the city of Rafah in southern Gaza and securing the release of hostages. Current estimates suggest that around 50 hostages remain in Gaza, with approximately 20 believed to be alive.
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has announced plans to establish a tent city in Rafah to relocate up to 600,000 Palestinians. Israel would control entry into the camp, prevent residents from leaving, and subsequently begin the process of transferring them out of Gaza altogether. This is all part of what has been referred to as the 'Trump Plan' for the 'depopulation' of the enclave and the establishment of full Israeli control.
According to Katz's broader plan, the remainder of Gaza's 2.1 million residents could eventually be expelled as well. Critics argue that this approach would amount to the forced displacement of Palestinians to third countries. Annelle Sheline, a fellow with the Quincy Institute's Middle East program, described the proposed camps as 'concentration camps' and expressed doubt that the Trump administration would intervene to stop the implementation of Israeli plans.
'Although Washington wields considerable influence over the details of what's happening, Trump effectively sidestepped the question of forced displacement by deferring responsibility to Netanyahu,' Sheline told Al Jazeera.
She further stated that Trump is surrounded by advisors who are unlikely to challenge him on moral or legal grounds. 'What's happening isn't just a potential crime against humanity – it's an effort to legitimize genocide and the subsequent deportation of survivors. And it implicates the United States directly,' the expert emphasized.
Trump himself has continued to strongly support Netanyahu, including by interfering in Israel's internal politics – he has openly criticized the prosecutors leading the corruption investigation against the Israeli prime minister, who faces charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. Netanyahu has denied all allegations.
According to the latest figures, the war in Gaza has killed at least 57,575 Palestinians and injured another 136,879. The majority of Gaza's population has been displaced, and UN estimates suggest that nearly half a million people are now on the brink of famine.
Against the backdrop of Netanyahu's visit to Washington, the day before – on July 6 – the BRICS leaders issued a joint declaration condemning the June strikes by Israel and the US on Iran, particularly targeting nuclear facilities. 'We condemn the military strikes against Iran that have taken place since June 13, 2025, which constitute a violation of international law and the UN Charter,' the statement read.
Specifically, the BRICS leaders expressed concern over attacks on civilian infrastructure and nuclear facilities. They also voiced alarm over the escalating tensions in the Middle East and called for diplomatic efforts to resolve regional crises. The declaration demanded a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and other occupied Palestinian territories and urged an immediate, lasting, and unconditional ceasefire. It further affirmed that Gaza is an integral part of the State of Palestine, which must be granted full independence.
The summit participants also called for the urgent delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza and advocated for the prompt release of both Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners. The declaration emphasized that Gaza and the West Bank should be administered by the future government of a sovereign Palestinian state.
Unsurprisingly, Trump – along with Netanyahu – was deeply displeased by the BRICS statement. He has repeatedly threatened sanctions against BRICS member states and their allies. According to Politico, Trump sent a letter to the Brazilian government threatening to impose 50% tariffs, accusing the country of politically persecuting former President Jair Bolsonaro, who is under investigation for his alleged role in the attempted coup of 2022. The White House reportedly chose swift and effective trade pressure over more complex sanctions mechanisms. According to former US Special Envoy to Latin America Mauricio Claver-Carone, the BRICS summit was 'the last straw' for Washington.
Trump's anger, his allies say, stems not only from the situation around Bolsonaro but also from BRICS's ongoing efforts to de-dollarize the global economy. The group's condemnation of the strikes on Iran and Israeli actions in the Middle East was also met with frustration in Washington. Former White House strategist Steve Bannon noted that Trump is irritated by every step the bloc takes to undermine the US dollar, and that the summit in Rio de Janeiro only intensified that irritation. In response to Washington's threats, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva announced retaliatory 50% tariffs on US goods. Meanwhile, Trump continues to ramp up pressure on other BRICS-aligned countries, threatening 10% tariffs – and previously even floated 100% tariffs – should the bloc attempt to replace the dollar in global trade.
Analyzing current global developments – from the BRICS summit in Rio to the escalating tensions in the Middle East – it is becoming increasingly clear that the world is moving toward a pronounced geopolitical divide. The interconnected nature of political, economic, and military processes across continents demonstrates that the era of unipolar dominance is fading. A growing confrontation is unfolding between two major blocs: the so-called West, led by the US, and the emerging non-Western world, whose political and economic core is increasingly represented by BRICS. This coalition is steadily solidifying its role as the voice of the Global South, positioning itself as the flagship of a movement advocating for multipolarity and greater equity in international affairs.
In its bid to preserve global dominance, the US has increasingly resorted to political and economic coercion, viewing BRICS' efforts as a direct challenge to the existing order. Yet, the global rift is not merely economic or ideological. The Middle East has become a frontline where this confrontation takes on the form of open conflict. Israel's actions, backed by Washington, are increasingly perceived in the non-Western world as a Western offensive against the interests of the 'World Majority' – nations that reject the dictates of traditional power centers. Within this context, Russia and China – both staunch supporters of Iran and other regional actors – are seen as natural allies to those resisting what is perceived as destructive Western policy. The contours of this global divide are becoming ever more defined: on one side, the US and its allies and proxies; on the other, those advocating for a reimagined world order based on fairness, sovereignty, and a balance of interests.
From this, one clear conclusion emerges: conflicts in the Middle East are set to intensify. Gaza will likely remain a flashpoint of violence and humanitarian crisis, as the root political and geopolitical causes of the conflict go unaddressed. The confrontation between Israel and Iran – already escalating through direct military engagements and cyber operations – may evolve into a wider and more dangerous conflict. Moreover, the arc of tension is likely to draw in additional regional players, including Türkiye and various Arab states. Despite longstanding economic and military ties with the West, many of these countries are increasingly gravitating toward the non-Western camp, which champions reforms to global institutions, challenges hegemonic structures, and upholds sovereignty and equality in international relations. This trend lays the groundwork for a profound transformation – not only of the Middle East, but of the global system itself – where the battle over new rules of engagement becomes a driving force behind enduring instability and conflict.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
12 hours ago
- Russia Today
Zelensky's end goal is in sight, and so is his end
When the US picks clients, vassals, and proxies, it needs men or women ready to trade in the interests, even the welfare and lives of their compatriots. Vladimir Zelensky is such a man. A look at the elites of EU-NATO Europe shows he is not alone. But he is an especially extreme case. It is much less than a decade ago that the former media entrepreneur and comedian – often crude instead of witty – advanced from being a pet protégé of one of Ukraine's most corrupt oligarchs to capturing the country's presidency. As it turned out, never to let go of it: Zelensky has used the war, which was provoked by the West and escalated in February 2022, not only to make himself an indispensable if very expensive and often obstreperous American puppet but also as a pretext to evade elections. And yet, now signs are multiplying that his days of being indispensable may be over. For one thing, Seymour Hersh, living legend of American investigative journalism, is reporting that Zelensky is very unpopular where it matters most, in US President Donald Trump's White House. This is not surprising: Trump's recent turn against Russia – whatever its real substance or marital reasons – does not mean a turn in favor of Ukraine and even less so in favor of Zelensky, as attentive observers have noted. According to the Financial Times, 'Western allies of Ukraine' still believe that Trump keeps seeing Russian President Vladimir Putin 'as his main negotiating partner and Zelensky as the primary obstacle to a workable peace deal.' And according to 'knowledgeable officials in Washington' who have talked to Hersh, the US leadership is ready to act on that problem by getting rid of Zelensky. And urgently: Some American officials consider removing the Ukrainian president 'feet first' in case he refuses to go. Their reason, according to Hersh's confidants: to make room for a deal with Russia. Hersh has to make do with publishing anonymous sources. It is even conceivable that the Trump administration is leaking this threat against Zelensky to pressure him. Yet even if so, that doesn't mean the threat is empty. Judging by past US behavior, using and then discarding other countries' leaders is always an option. Another, also plausible, possibility is that Zelensky will be discarded to facilitate not ending, but continuing the war, so as to keep draining Russian resources. In this scenario, the US would prolong the war by handing it over to its loyally self-harming European vassals. After, that is, seeing to the installation of a new leader in Kiev, one it has under even better control than Zelensky. Just to make sure the Europeans and the Ukrainians do not start understanding each other too well and end up slipping from US control. The Ukrainian replacement candidate everyone whispers about, old Zelensky nemesis General Valery Zaluzhny – currently in de facto exile as ambassador to the UK – might well be available for both options, depending on his marching orders from Washington. Meanwhile, as if on cue, Western mainstream media have started to notice the obvious: The Financial Times has found out that critics accuse Zelensky of an 'authoritarian slide,' which is still putting it very mildly but closer to the truth than past daft hero worship. The Spectator – in fairness, a magazine with a tradition of being somewhat more realistic about Ukraine – has fired a broadside under the title 'Ukraine has lost faith in Zelensky.' The Economist has detected an 'outrage' in Zelensky's moves and, more tellingly, used a picture of him making him look like a cross between a Bond villain and Saddam Hussein. Even Deutsche Welle, a German state propaganda outlet, is now reporting on massive human rights infringements under Zelensky, with the impaired systematically targeted for forced mobilization. Full disclosure: Knowing Ukrainian and Russian – Ukraine's two languages – well and having written about the realities of Zelensky's misrule for years already, my immediate response to these sudden revelations is 'what took you so long?' My first articles explaining Zelensky's obvious authoritarian tendencies – and practices, too – date back to 2021, and I have repeatedly pointed out that his popularity was slipping. All it took was to pay attention to Ukrainian polling. But then, I know the reason for the mainstream's delay: The bias induced by Western information warfare and media career conformism, which only weakens a little – or is redirected – when the geopolitics of the powerful change. In that sense, the increasingly sharp public criticism of Zelensky is yet another sign that he has fallen – and remains – out of favor with the American leadership that rules the West. Zelensky's recent actions may well indicate, as Hersh also suspects, that he knows he is in great danger – and not from Russia but his 'friends' in the West. Just over the course of the last two weeks, Zelensky has reshuffled his government and, at the same time, started a devastating campaign against institutions and individuals that have two things in common: the mission to combat corruption and a well-deserved reputation for being particularly open to US influence. Indeed, it is when Zelensky escalated his attacks on the latter that the Financial Times woke up from years of sweet slumber to discover there's something authoritarian about the West's top man in Ukraine. By now, things have only gotten worse: The domestic intelligence – and, of course, repression – service SBU has raided key anti-corruption organizations and made arrests. Simultaneously, Zelensky's absolutely obedient majority in the Ukrainian parliament has passed a law to completely neuter these institutions by putting them under the president's control, which the president then signed rapidly. By now, Ukraine is witnessing widespread protests against Zelensky's attempt to combine maximum greed with unfettered if petty despotism. For the Ukrainian news site – a media rarity, as it has managed to resist the Zelensky regime's aggressive attempts to subdue and streamline it – the SBU raids on the anti-corruption agencies alone were a powerplay, designed to consolidate Zelensky's one-man rule. That is correct, and he wasn't even done. At the same time, it is, obviously, also very convenient to remove the last feeble restraints on Ukraine's fabulously pervasive graft, since whatever the West – that is, the Europeans – will now spend on Ukraine will be misappropriated even more wildly than before. That could come in handy especially if there should be a need to stay rich in exile. This gangster-economic aspect of Zelensky's fresh power grab has not escaped even his Western friends: the OECD has already warned the Ukrainian regime that the stifling of the anti-corruption agencies will harm Western investment in Ukraine's reconstruction in general and its arms industry in particular. Likewise, the International Renaissance Foundation, a Soros power structure that has been all too active in Ukraine for more than three decades now, has also called for a repeal of the new law. In essence, these and similar Western complaints all mean the same: We know you are robbing us blind already but we've made our peace with that because you serve our geopolitics. But if you try to take an even larger cut, we may reconsider. Taken together, Zelensky's government reshuffle and his assault on the anti-corruption agencies seem to reflect a double strategy: On one side, the endangered puppet is signaling submission to the US in at least some of his recent personnel moves, but on the other, he is also consolidating his power at home by insulating it from too much direct American influence. It is as if he were sending a message to Washington: 'I really am your man. But if you try to choose another, I'll fight.' The historic irony is that, with Zelensky succeeding in finally razing the last pitiful remnants of pluralism in Ukraine, he – the once hysterically idolized darling of the 'value-based' West – will be the president achieving a complete authoritarianism like no Ukrainian leader before him. And all that while propped up with hundreds of billions from the West. Any displays of surprise or shock by Ukrainian and Western politicians or mainstream media betray either that they have been dozing under a rock for years or that they are being disingenuous. Because today's Zelensky is not 'turning' to authoritarianism. On the contrary, authoritarianism has always been his default disposition and his aim. Zelensky has been working on his personal assent to unchecked power – and, of course, its material spoils as well – since he became Ukraine's president. That means, long before the conflict between Russia and Ukraine (and behind and through it the West) escalated in early 2022. How do we know? Because it was already obvious, including to many Ukrainians, by 2021 at the very latest. It was then that Zelensky's Ukrainian critics – not Russians or those with sympathy for Russia – attacked him and his political party 'Servant of the People' for erecting a 'mono-vlada,' that is, in essence, an authoritarian political machine to control not only the state but the public sphere as well. By 2021, Zelensky had already engaged in all of the following: vicious lawfare against Ukraine's opposition and his personal political rivals, such as former president Petro Poroshenko; massive media censorship and streamlining, while targeting with repression and chicanery any outlets, editors, and journalists daring to resist, for instance systematically and illegally abusing emergency powers and unaccountable but powerful institutions (most of all, the National Security Council) to stifle criticism; and, last but not least, the fostering of a dictatorial personality cult which was boosted by the West. Since then, things have only gotten worse. Zelensky has steadily fastened his hold over Ukraine, while prolonging and losing an avoidable and catastrophic war for a Western strategy to demote Russia. Ukraine has been bled dry for a cynical and (predictably) failing Western scheme; Russia, meanwhile is not only winning but has greatly increased its autonomy from the West. The war may end soon or it may drag on. For the sake of Ukraine we have to hope it will be over soon. Zelensky, if he were a decent man, would then have to hand himself over to postwar Ukrainian justice or be his own judge, the old-fashioned way. But Zelensky is no decent man. If rumors now swirling are not only plausible but truthful, then his masters in Washington may be the ones preparing an appropriately indecent end for him. If the protests against him accelerate, Zelensky may even end up 'color-revolution-ed.' How ironic.
Russia Today
13 hours ago
- Russia Today
Obama ‘guilty of treason'
US President Donald Trump has accused Barack Obama of 'treason,' promising to 'go after' him and his administration's top intelligence officials over their alleged plot to 'rig elections' and stage the Russiagate hoax. Trump made the remarks while speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday. The former US president should be targeted directly by the Department of Justice, Trump stated when asked about the report released by Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard last week that alleged Obama administration officials 'manufactured intelligence' to falsely accuse Trump of colluding with Russia. 'This was treason. Barack Hussein Obama is the ringleader. Hillary Clinton was right there with him, and so was Sleepy Joe Biden, and so were the rest of them: [former FBI Director James] Comey, [former DNI Director James] Clapper, the whole group,' Trump stated. 'They tried to rig an election, and they got caught. And then they did rig the election in 2020. And then because I knew I won that election by a lot, I did it a third time, and I won in a landslide,' he added. Gabbard's report was 'like proof, irrefutable proof, that Obama was seditious,' Trump said, accusing his predecessor of 'trying to lead a coup.' 'This is the biggest scandal in the history of our country.' The report, which includes over 100 declassified documents, suggests that Obama's spy chiefs discarded all intelligence assessments that found no Russian involvement and replaced them with fabricated claims, paving the way for the Russiagate probe, described by Gabbard as a 'years-long coup' against Trump. Obama has strongly denied the allegations, reiterating his stance shortly after the latest Oval Office remarks by Trump. Gabbard's report contains nothing that 'undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes,' Obama's office said in a statement. 'Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response. But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction,' it claimed.
Russia Today
13 hours ago
- Russia Today
US Olympic Committee bans transgender athletes from women's sports
The US Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) has barred transgender women from competing in Olympic women's sports on Monday, complying with an earlier order by President Donald Trump. The document does not mention the word 'transgender' but refers to Trump's order titled 'Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports' from February 5 that bans transgender females from women's sports teams and threatens a loss of funding for educational institutions that violate the policy. 'The USOPC will […] ensure that women have a fair and safe competition environment consistent with Executive Order 14201,' according to the Athlete Safety Policy published on Monday on the USOPC website. With his return to office in January, Trump has dismantled transgender rights protections enacted by former President Joe Biden's administration, ended federal support for 'chemical and surgical mutilation' of those under the age of 19, issued a decree recognizing only male and female genders, and banned transgender individuals from serving in the military. A notification letter sent by USOPC CEO Sarah Hirshland and President Gene Sykes to the body's stakeholders stated that 'as a federally chartered organization, the USOPC is obligated to comply with federal requirements.' It directed the national governing bodies for all sports to update their policies accordingly. A number of institutions have already begun implementing the new rules. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) was one of the first to adopt Trump's order in February. The participation of transgender athletes in international competitions has been a source of widespread controversy. Two boxers in the female division, Algeria's Imane Khelif and Chinese Taipei's Lin Yu-ting, won gold medals at the 2024 Paris Summer Olympics after being disqualified from the 2023 World Championship for testing for the male set of chromosomes. Trump later called them men who 'transitioned.' In 2022, transgender swimmer Lia Thomas, initially a member of the University of Pennsylvania men's team, won the NCAA 500-yard women's freestyle. The following year, the World Athletics Council banned transgender women who had gone through puberty as a male from female competitions.
