Superman: Palestinians are not waiting for a white superhero saviour
Gunn has brought a fresh take to the tired old America-is-best cliche of US blockbusters, although he is not the first to explore the dangers of military-technological capitalism.
Some viewers are reading Superman as a not-so-subtle attack on Israel, with the US-allied white European regime of Boravia, led by a David Ben Gurion lookalike, attacking its poor, non-white neighbour Jarhanpur. (Spoiler alert)
The visual symbolism of key scenes - with a heavily armed army confronting unarmed protestors at a security fence - speaks strongly of Israel's border fence with Gaza and its repeated invasions of the Palestinian territory.
For right-wing commentators, this is a step too far, with conservatives accusing the film of "going woke" with its politics.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
Gunn began working on the film in 2022, so its germination predates the Hamas attack of October 2023 and subsequent Israeli onslaught against Gaza.
The chief villain of the movie, Lex Luthor, is portrayed as an Elon Musk-type billionaire who has designs of carving up Jarhanpur with Boravia, and is supplying it with billions in weapons.
So far, so 2020s Middle East geopolitics. Superman is a naive good guy who loves his super-dog Crypto and saves squirrels from giant city-destroying monsters.
Gunn has denied the film is about the Middle East, and in the original comic, the conflict was actually set in Europe. There are strong shades of Russian accents and Putin-style dictatorship in Boravia, which blurs the case that it is supposed to be a Jewish state (although the east European origins of many Israelis fuels the idea of this being an Israel-Palestine plot).
Superman the peacemaker
Superman's girlfriend-reporter Lois Lane interviews him for the Daily Planet about his intervention to stop a Boravian invasion of Jarhanpur. She points to the repressive nature of the regime there, and Superman immediately responds that this is not an excuse to invade the country.
This interchange is where the real contemporary political arguments are laid out against US intervention and regime change wars.
Superman confronts the more serious problem of how he can save the world when the enemy of world peace is a rogue USA and its aggressive ally
A later scene of Boravia's invasion of Jarhanpur is what most viewers have focused on, with a young boy hoisting the national flag as tanks and heavily armed troops advance menacingly and unarmed protesters flee under fire.
The scene speaks to the Gaza Great March of Return protests along the Israeli border fence in 2018 and 2019, when more than 200 Palestinians were killed and over 8,000 injured by Israeli sniper fire.
Superman was created as a symbol of American power in the run-up to World War Two. While superheroes are not all direct cyphers of US imperialism, the idea of a 'superpower' that enables a character to defeat its opponents through prolonged bouts of combat is the essence of the American way. Superheroes are F-35s in human form.
Compared to the slacker comedy vibes of Gunn's breakout Guardians of the Galaxy franchise, this Superman is your typical wholesome all-American hero, and there are even jokes at his expense when he claims to like lame pop bands that he thinks are punk.
And yet, here Superman confronts the more serious problem of how he can save the world when the enemy of world peace is a rogue USA and its aggressive ally. His intervention to save a poor Global South country from invasion is seen as unwarranted intervention against a US enemy.
He is demonised as a dangerous alien (by an army of literal Twitter monkeys controlled by Luthor), accused of having a harem of wives to take over the planet and turn humans into slaves. Shades of the great replacement theory. Once the story breaks, the people of Metropolis turn against him and he is arrested and imprisoned.
Superman hits the limit of geopolitical critique Hollywood style: the whole thing must be neatly wrapped up, with baddies defeated at the end of the last reel
The film also takes a swipe at the military-industrial complex and its links to settler colonialism, with Lex Luthor arming Boravia in order to get his hands on a chunk of territory, like Trump's dream of owning a "Riviera of the Middle East" on the rubble of Gaza.
The heroes of the film, aside from Superman, are the Justice Gang trio of corporate-backed superheroes, who reluctantly join the fray against Boravia and the billionaire, and the plucky editorial team of the Daily Planet.
And this is where Hollywood reaches the limit of blockbuster geopolitical commentary. Rather than portray the military-technology complex as part of a larger imperial-political-media complex, in the film, the evil enterprise to seize a colonised territory is the work of some bad players.
Once their scheme is exposed, the media and the corporate superheroes do the right thing and move to end the dastardly plot. The US government is almost a passive bystander being played by Luthor.
Ordinary heroes
To be fair to Gunn's script, in the film, a South Asian man in Metropolis comes to the rescue of Superman when one of Luthor's clone super soldiers injures him.
The man is immediately profiled by Luthor's operation room surveillance system, and is later captured and used as a hostage to get Superman to reveal the location of his lair. His fate is the fate of all ordinary super humans who lay down their lives for others in the face of a brutal imperial machine. This is probably the most truthful moment in the movie.
No wonder that Israel and its backers have taken a strong dislike to the film. Arch Israel propagandist Ben Shapiro merely wrote: 'Not Good.'
How the New York Times enabled genocide 'more than Starbucks' | Mona Chalabi Read More »
Yet if the movie was going to make more than a nod toward the themes that it has used as a backdrop for the usual explosions, monster fights and midair punch-ups, it would need to go deeper.
The idea that a New York Times-style paper of record, and a mainstream TV broadcaster would turn around and expose plans to invade and annexe territory by a US-backed settler regime is wholly incredible.
Instead, they would conceal the truth by portraying the victims as terrorists and describe Boravia as merely 'defending itself'.
Superman hits the limit of geopolitical critique Hollywood style: the whole thing must be neatly wrapped up, with baddies defeated and the people saved at the end of the last reel.
The idea of a US team of crack superheroes casually destroying a US allied army in the Middle East to save the indigenous people from invasion is, of course, for the birds. And for that reason, it doesn't really land dramatically.
Palestinians are not waiting for any western superheroes to save them. Their allies are the hundreds of millions of people around the world who demand their liberation and an end to genocide. The superheroes are the people risking their lives on aid convoys, and the Palestinian medical and aid staff trying to save lives under Israeli siege.
Perhaps this goes without saying, but one day, we might actually see these heroes in a Hollywood movie. I won't hold my breath.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Startling new details reveal how Gazans are lured to their deaths in aid queues
The National can reveal new details of the systematic killing of Palestinians while attempting to collect aid in Gaza, based on new evidence provided by survivors. Striking testimony from Gazans who have escaped the crossfire of the Israeli military during distribution at the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation 's aid sites purports to unveil a strategy that legitimises force being used by the military, luring desperate civilians into waves of live fire that can be justified by occupying forces. Survivors told The National that the pattern is that after waiting all night, crowds are shot at early in the morning before the arrival of tanks, which causes panic among aid-seekers. Fleeing the tanks, they are then shot at by Israeli soldiers for moving in "unauthorised directions". More than 1,300 Palestinians have been killed while waiting to receive aid, at least 850 of them by Israel's army, since the inception of the US-Israeli backed GHF in May, the UN said last week. The question is: why? The National spoke to witnesses, experts, victims and others to uncover the circumstances under which starving Gazans are dying by bullets. The investigation revealed humiliating tactics used by the Israeli army to control crowds waiting for aid, often under inhumane conditions at sites that can only be described as death traps. It showed how soldiers have effectively been given licence to shoot and eliminate anyone they suspect might pose a threat, frequently killing men and women who are simply trying to feed their families. But first: what is the GHF? The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation for the distribution of aid was announced in February as an alternative to the UN in Gaza, as Israeli authorities did not trust the internationally recognised institution, even though it has been operating in the enclave successfully for decades. Israel's pretext for creating the GHF was based on its accusations against Hamas of stealing aid, although Israeli military officials, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the UN have said that is simply not the case. There are only four GHF distribution sites in Gaza, where nine out of 10 people have been displaced numerous times during the war. Three of these sites are in Rafah, in the south, where Israel had said it would create camps to "concentrate Palestinians" and prevent them from leaving. The Rafah sites are metres from each other, in militarised zones once declared unsafe by Israel's standards, as the army had been operating there. The fourth site, Wadi Gaza, is in a buffer zone along the recently created Netzarim corridor. The UN's refusal to work with the GHF is based on the organisation's lack of adherence to humanitarian principles. Trekking for food By design, the GHF is set up in a way that encourages displacement, because it forces people to trek through lawless, dangerous and difficult terrain with no guarantee they will be receiving aid, a crime under international humanitarian law – by forcing people to move closer to the few aid sites. In contrast, the UN operates hundreds of distribution sites across Gaza and delivers aid to those in need, whether in schools that have become shelters, hospitals, tents or homes. On average, the distribution sites give out anywhere between 3,000 and 9,000 boxes a day – according to posts on their Facebook page – barely enough for a population of 2.2 million, all of them in need. What began on May 27 with fenced queues, intense screenings and segregated entry and exit lanes, seems to have devolved into near total disorder in which crowds surge from every direction. There have been reports of live fire and tank fire at crowds almost every day since the sites have been up and running. Recent high-resolution satellite images confirm that the compounds were built with two main corridors to separate arrivals and departures. Other social media footage shows watchtowers overlooking each site, while makeshift utility poles carry floodlights around sand berms designed to contain crowds. Ultimately, Israel, which controls every land entry and exit point in Gaza, as well as its sea and sky, is responsible for the security of the sites in co-ordination with the GHF. Some GHF staff are armed private contractors – that is, people with a military background. People, such as retired Lt Col Anthony Aguilar, have been whistleblowers on the GHF's activities. Since the beginning of its operation, the system has been rigged and key components of its work were left unclear, he said. "There were no clear indicators, no established rules of engagement or standard operating procedures for engaging with civilians," he said on Tuesday. Mr Aguilar also highlighted the fact that some of the sites are in areas that had once been declared military zones by Israel; areas that Israel had told civilians to flee "for their own safety". "This is a violation of international law," Mr Aguilar claimed. Unpacking the process To better understand the circumstances, it is essential to explain the process and what unfolds each day at aid distribution sites across the famine-stricken Palestinian territory. According to witnesses and people with knowledge of the process, hungry civilians gather overnight in areas near distribution sites. The key is for people to arrive before the chaos starts, and for those who are even slightly late, death might be closer than assistance. In the case of the Wadi Gaza distribution site, which is in an "evacuation zone" – an area the Israelis have told Palestinians is too dangerous to live in – people spend the night under the Wadi Gaza bridge. Others, like 35-year-old Abu Al Majd, choose to depart just after fajr (dawn) prayers. From his tent in Nuseirat, it's a 3km walk, which almost guarantees him a spot closer to the aid site, even though there is no specific time for when the distribution, which lasts for around 10 minutes at a time, begins and ends. Then, throngs of people begin arriving, pushing those in front of them as they clamour for aid. That is when the gunshots begin, under the guise of "crowd control"; and when it does, it's impossible to know where and who the bullets are coming from. "They begin their warm-up by firing at the crowds at 6am before the tanks arrive around an hour later," Mr Al Majd told The National. Once that happens and panic sets in, people begin running in all directions, trying to avoid the fire. The Israeli army fires again because people start moving in "unauthorised directions". This happens again. And again. Once more, when people arrive to find that all the boxes have been taken, they sit and sift through the sand for grains of rice and pasta that their predecessors left. And another time, when there is nothing left, and the armed men tell people who had walked for 12km or so, starving and thirsty, to come back tomorrow. "They say 'we're staying here till you get us something' – and that's when the Israeli army starts firing again. The fourth massacre of the day," said an expert on aid distribution with knowledge of the process. Everyone a target The body of evidence backing deaths and injuries at or near the aid distribution points is solid. Testimonies, video footage and official statements all back up the claim that not enough is being done to prevent the sites from turning into crime scenes. Speaking to The National, a father Palestinian who had been attempting to go to a GHF site, described what he saw. "They killed a little boy, 10 metres from where I was," he told The National. "His mother and father looked on. With one bullet, both he and his uncle were shot dead. I will never forget that scene." Among the hundreds of victims was Ehab, a father of three, who left for one of the aid sites in Rafah early on June 10 and never returned. His family's calls to him went unanswered and they learnt of his fate later that day when his cousin Omar spotted Ehab in photos of unidentified victims of a shooting at aid sites who had been brought to Al Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis. "He was shot in the head," Omar told The National. The bullets are not only aimed at aid seekers but also at those who help the wounded. In a testimony to Doctors Without Borders (MSF), Mohammad Daghmeh, 24, said he was shot at 3.10am and was left bleeding until 5am. "There were many other men with me. One of them tried to get me out. He was shot in the head and died on my chest," he said. Others, such as Mahmoud Assaf, a researcher in his 40s, were terrified of what they saw on the one occasion they went to an aid site. He had left at 10am and came back at 7pm empty-handed. People, he said, were fighting like dogs over meat. When shots are fired, everybody ducks or tries to take cover. Chaos ensues. In a vicious cycle, Mr Assaf's health is exacerbated by hunger – the very hunger that is driving him to try to fetch food for his children. "They offered to go in my stead, but I couldn't bear the thought of something happening to them." The shooting, he said, seems to be at random. If they escape the bullets, pepper spray and stun grenades, aid seekers still run the risk of being trampled. The dangers are too numerous, he said. Mr Assaf, luckier than others, said he instead opted to buy aid being sold on the black market, albeit at exorbitant prices, with the cost of 1kg of flour ranging anywhere between $300 and $800, depending on the prospects of a ceasefire and the amount of aid entering the Strip. Israeli testimonies Shots fired at civilians rushing for boxes of aid containing their only source of food are being labelled as "crowd control" measures. But evidence of the carnage taking place at and around the distribution sites is widely documented in videos, testimonies and statements by members of the GHF who blew the whistle anonymously or openly. Speaking to Israeli newspaper Haaretz, several Israeli soldiers who worked at GHF distribution sites acknowledged the use of firepower, through heavy machine guns, grenade launchers and mortars, either as warning shots or to disperse crowds. "Our form of communication is gunfire," one said. "We open fire early in the morning if someone tries to get in line from a few hundred metres away and sometimes we just charge at them from close range. But there's no danger to the forces." Mr Aguilar claimed that using machineguns and military quadcopters to disperse hungry and desperate people in famine-stricken Gaza results in widespread panic and an increase in the lack of safety for them and others. He recounted numerous missteps, from bringing armed contractors like him on a tourist visa to witnessing war crimes in the form of live ammunition being used against unarmed civilians. The GHF has repeatedly rejected Mr Aguilar's claims, calling them "categorically false" and made by a "disgruntled former contractor who was terminated for misconduct". Claims of shootings are not limited to witnesses, former GHF officials and soldiers, however. The International Committee of the Red Cross, which operates a field hospital in Rafah, has been running "beyond maximum capacity almost daily" since the GHF began operations, treating more patients in that time than it did in the entire preceding year, it said. "Its staff are racing to treat an unrelenting tide of injuries, the vast majority caused by gunfire," it said. These include toddlers, teenagers, the elderly, mothers, and men and boys, who are known to frequent GHF sites. Last week, the UN released a video showing shots being fired towards people waiting for food in humiliating conditions, many of them children, as an aid convoy approaches. The shots are fired into the ground in front of a crowd of people, who begin rushing towards the UN vehicles as they draw near. Olga Cherevko, spokeswoman for the UN Office for Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, said the UN team faced 'several constraints' when they went to pick up food supplies from the border crossing. 'One of the constraints that we faced was waiting about two and a half hours at an Israeli forces checkpoint, which by the time we were allowed to pass, we were met on the road by tens of thousands of hungry and desperate people who directly offloaded everything from the backs of our lorries.' Israel had not given the UN enough time to secure the aid on the lorries, Ms Cherevko said, making it easier for the packages to fall off. Blame game After months of denials and deflecting responsibility for its role in the reported deaths, Israel acknowledged some of the reality on the ground. "Following incidents in which harm to civilians who arrived at distribution facilities was reported, thorough examinations were conducted in the Southern Command and instructions were issued to forces in the field following lessons learnt," the Israeli army told The National, without clarifying what the new instructions were. A "review" of the "incidents" was being conducted, it said. Since Israel stopped all aid from entering Gaza in March, dozens of people, including 24 children under five, have died of malnutrition, the World Health Organisation (WHO) said. The army also clarified it is not running the GHF centres, although it "allows the American civil organisation [GHF] to distribute aid". Security of those zones is handled by the organisation," Israel's military added. But the GHF has taken a different position. Referring to a video with which the Associated Press confronted it during an investigation into its conduct, the organisation said the shots heard were not coming from them, but from Israeli forces. Israel has created an atmosphere in Gaza that has pushed people to starvation, caused prices to rise sharply to hundreds of dollars for basic necessities like flour and sugar, all the while making roads dangerous, medical assistance a rare privilege and safety almost non-existent. With almost the entire population of Gaza displaced, more than 40,000 people are crammed into a 1 square km space. To wonder why the Israeli army, or the armed guards working under its watch, are firing at hungry Gazans is to ask why the GHF has been created.
Middle East Eye
an hour ago
- Middle East Eye
Polish ambassador to Israel facing formal disciplinary action after criticism by Poland's foreign ministry
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar has summoned the Polish ambassador to Israel for an official reprimand following critical remarks made by Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and the Polish Foreign Ministry. Saar slammed what he claimed were "outrageous references to concentration camps" and accusations that Israel is weaponising hunger. "Israel strongly rejects these accusations, and expects Poland to refrain from using language that distorts history and denigrates the memory of the victims of the Holocaust," his statement added.
Middle East Eye
2 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Syria after Assad: How Israel and the US are accelerating plans to partition the country
Last month, Israel launched a new round of air strikes on Syria, hitting targets near Damascus, Homs and the southern province of Sweida. Presented as attacks on Syrian government forces and under the pretext of protecting the Druze minority, they aim to advance the Zionist regime's ongoing campaign of regional domination and fragmentation. Since the fall of Bashar al-Assad in December 2024, Israel has expanded its aggression, occupying more than 400 sqkm of additional Syrian territory and systematically destroying what remains of the country's military infrastructure. This escalation comes as Israel's genocidal war on Gaza, now in its 23rd month, continues to reverberate across multiple fronts. The United States has also carried out air strikes and raids, backed Kurdish forces in the northeast and facilitated Israeli attacks - all to maintain its foothold in Syria and prevent the rise of any force that could challenge its order. While the US prioritises geostrategic control and the protection of its energy and security interests, Israel seeks to break Syria into ethnic and sectarian enclaves as part of a decades-old strategy to fragment the Arab world and cement its own regional hegemony. This policy follows the approach both have pursued since the outset of the Syrian war in 2011. At its core lies a shared objective: to dismantle Syria as a unified, sovereign state and ensure that no regional or global actor can challenge the American-Israeli order in the Middle East. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Fragmenting Syria Israel's strategy in the Arab world can be traced back to the early days of the Zionist state. Internal Israeli strategic documents from the 1950s, including proposals by the Israeli foreign ministry and Mossad, advocated for a Kurdish state as a buffer against Arab nationalism. This vision was later crystallised in the infamous 1982 Yinon Plan, authored by Oded Yinon, a former Israeli foreign ministry official. The plan called for "the dissolution of districts of ethnic and religious minorities...[as] Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long will disintegrate into several states along the lines of its ethnic and religious structure". Israel's dominance depended on fragmenting the Arab world into sectarian and ethnic enclaves, replacing strong, unified countries with weak, balkanised statelets The Yinon Plan argued that Israel's security and dominance depended on the dissolution of Arab states into smaller sectarian and ethnic entities, including Druze, Alawi, Kurdish, Maronite, Coptic and others. The aim was to replace strong, centralised Arab states with weak, balkanised statelets that posed no threat to Israel and could potentially become allies or proxies under Israeli protection. In the case of Syria, this strategy involves the partition of the country into four main zones of influence: 1) a Druze homeland centred in Sweida in southern Syria, where Israel hopes to foster a Druze-aligned mini-state under its influence; 2) an Alawi statelet in the coastal region under Russian protection, centred around Latakia and Tartus; 3) a Kurdish zone in northeastern Syria, backed by the US, where the Democratic Union Party (PYD) and People's Protection Units (YPG) control vast swathes of territory; and 4) a Sunni Arab belt under Turkish influence, especially along the northern and northwestern borders and the heartland. This partition model directly serves Israeli goals by keeping Syria weak, divided and unable to re-emerge as a regional actor capable of supporting the Palestinian resistance or opposing Israeli expansionism. It has long been embedded in Zionist strategy for the Middle East. One of the most influential Zionist thinkers and advisers to American and Israeli officials, Bernard Lewis, wrote in 1992: "Most of the states of the Middle to such a process [of 'Lebanonisation']. If the central power is sufficiently state then a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions, and parties." Crippling Syria Since 2013, the Zionist regime has waged a sustained aerial campaign on Syrian territory, often under the pretext of targeting Iranian or Hezbollah positions. After 7 October 2023, these attacks expanded to include the assassination of senior Iranian and Hezbollah commanders on Syrian soil, as part of a wider assault on the so-called "Axis of Resistance" - targeting Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and allied forces across the region, including in Syria. Follow Middle East Eye's live coverage of Israel's war on Gaza Israel's destabilisation efforts in Syria mirror the siege and destruction it is inflicting on Gaza, and are aimed at weakening resistance forces and accelerating the long-standing plan to divide the country. Over time, Israel has destroyed Syria's air defence systems, weapons depots, military bases and scientific research centres. In recent months, this strategy has sought to deter Iran, prevent Syria from rebuilding its military capacity and enforce permanent Israeli military and psychological superiority in the region. Controlling Syria The US strategy in Syria aligns with its post-Cold War grand strategy of preventing any regional or global rival from gaining ground. During the Cold War, Washington viewed Syria, especially under former President Hafez al-Assad, as a Soviet client state and a supporter of Arab nationalist causes, Palestinian resistance and regional alliances opposed to US influence. After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the US sought to isolate Syria and prevent it from filling the regional vacuum left by Saddam Hussein's ouster. Since Syria's 2011 uprising, the US has adopted a policy of selective engagement: backing Kurdish forces in the northeast under the guise of countering extremist groups and limiting Iranian influence, while allowing Israeli strikes. Syria after Assad: Why Israel's vow to 'protect' the Druze is hollow Read More » Even though the US appears to support a de facto partition of Syria, its objective is not necessarily Israeli-style ethnic fragmentation. Rather, it seeks to preserve a military and political presence that blocks Russian and Iranian access to the eastern Mediterranean and ensures any future Syrian government aligns with Washington's strategic interests. The recent escalation in the southern Druze-majority city of Sweida underscores Israel's interest in carving out a loyal enclave along its northern front - a goal consistent with the Yinon Plan's strategy of cultivating alliances with minorities who might favour autonomy under Israeli patronage. Yet the Druze community remains divided, with many rejecting foreign interference. While Israel pushes for this statelet, the US is cautious - calling for calm but avoiding any condemnation, wary of backlash in neighbouring states and among Druze communities inside Israel. It also fears that further fragmentation could strengthen extremist groups or open the door to Russian and Iranian gains. The US, therefore, prefers a controlled, divided Syria - weak enough to be pliant but not totally collapsed - where it can retain influence without triggering wider regional instability. Israel, by contrast, is more willing to tolerate, or even foment, chaos if it means permanently removing Syria as a potential threat, especially having already annexed the Syrian Golan Heights. Turkey's stake Turkey plays a crucial role in Syria's current reconstruction. Ankara initially sought regime change in Damascus by backing opposition groups and militant factions. However, after failed attempts to unseat Assad and growing concerns over Kurdish autonomy near its borders, Turkey shifted focus. Turkish forces moved into parts of northern Syria, where they support Syrian Arab and Turkmen militias in order to check and limit Kurdish influence. Since the ouster of Assad, Turkey has become the main power backing and supporting the current Syrian regime. Turkey's interests diverge sharply from those of the US and Israel, which have focused on empowering Kurdish militias and Druze separatists, respectively. While the US and Israel have supported Kurdish actors as counterweights to Assad and Iran, Turkey considers any Kurdish autonomy a national security threat. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan recently declared: "Turkey will intervene against any attempts to fragment Syria or allow militant groups to gain are warning you: no group should engage in acts towards division." Fight for the 'Heartland' A famous principle of geopolitical theory, put forward by British academic and politician Halford Mackinder, states: "Who rules Eastern Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World Island; who rules the World Island commands the world." Unless regional actors form a coordinated response, Syria's dismemberment could become a permanent reality By analogy, Syria occupies a central node in the Arab world, controlling vital transit routes, trade corridors and regional alliances - much like Mackinder's Heartland. Regional and global powers believe that whoever controls Syria, or a major part of it, will influence - if not shape - the entire Middle East. In this context, the US and Israel are executing a two-pronged policy in Syria. For the US, Syria is a chessboard on which it seeks to block adversaries, protect petrodollar hegemony and secure Israel's position without becoming too entangled. For Israel, Syria is an existential threat to be dismantled and restructured into a patchwork of mini-states. The danger lies in the prolonged suffering of the Syrian people, the erosion of Arab sovereignty and the potential explosion of wider conflict. Unless regional actors - particularly Turkey, but also Iran and Arab states - form a coordinated response, Syria's dismemberment could become a permanent reality, fulfilling the long-standing Zionist blueprint for a fractured, compliant Middle East. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
