Power, dominance and the fractured Middle East

Libyan Express

29-06-2025

Ahmed Mayouf, Libyan analyst, warns of the region's slide from influence to existential threat
In the years following the incomplete revolutions of the Arab Spring, a fundamental reality has come into sharper focus: nearly every state, whether powerful or peripheral, seeks to assert hegemony—be it political, economic, cultural or military. This pursuit of influence is not confined to global superpowers. It is a defining feature of international relations today, shaped by a fluid global order where national interests increasingly override shared principles.
While some states have resisted such efforts—either through internal cohesion between the people and their rulers, or through the endurance of institutional structures—external attempts at domination have continued. The erosion of the post-war international system and the decline of multilateral norms have only emboldened expansionist actors. In this shifting landscape, two powers—Iran and Israel—stand out as key architects of new regional dynamics. Each pursues a distinct project of influence, shaped by history, ideology, and hard power. Yet, the implications of their ambitions differ in scope and consequence.
Iran: Ideology and strategic depth
Since the 1979 revolution, Iran has pursued a long-term vision to shape the Middle East through a combination of ideological influence, strategic alliances, and calculated geopolitical manoeuvres. Ayatollah Khomeini's call for 'exporting the revolution' and 'awakening the Islamic world' signalled Tehran's intent to become the vanguard of a transnational Islamic resurgence. While this rhetoric was not explicitly aimed at dismantling nation-states, it did promote political independence from Western powers and a reimagined regional order grounded in Islamic unity.
Over the decades, Iran has operationalised this vision by forging alliances with non-state actors and governments that share its opposition to Western dominance. From Hezbollah in Lebanon, to the Houthis in Yemen, to the Popular Mobilisation Forces in Iraq, and its enduring alliance with the Assad regime in Syria, Iran has developed a regional network of influence that has proven highly resilient.
Iran's perception of threat has been equally influential in shaping its strategy. The presence of American military bases across the Gulf, alongside Israel's regional footprint, is viewed in Tehran as a direct challenge to its sovereignty and national security. In response, Iran has pursued 'strategic depth' by projecting power beyond its borders, establishing influence over neighbouring states, and controlling chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz—a vital artery through which 20% of the world's oil and gas flows. This geographical leverage has enhanced its bargaining power not only with regional actors but with global powers reliant on energy security.
Yet Iran's ambitions are not pursued through outright occupation. Instead, it relies on ideological appeal, asymmetrical warfare, and proxy networks. Through this approach, it has carved a sphere of influence that extends from the Persian Gulf to the eastern Mediterranean—a formation often referred to as the 'Shia Crescent.' Despite some setbacks, particularly in Syria following shifts in the Assad regime's fortunes, Iran has succeeded in embedding itself within the region's political and security landscape.
Israel: From survival to supremacy
If Iran's project is ideological and defensive in origin, Israel's project is fundamentally existential and expansionist in trajectory. Since its creation in 1948, Israel has operated within a regional environment that questions its legitimacy. In response, it has adopted a posture grounded in security imperatives and strategic superiority. Over time, however, this has evolved into a more assertive quest for political normalisation, territorial consolidation, and demographic engineering.
Israel's security doctrine, once centred on deterrence and survival, has expanded to include a range of political and ideological objectives. At the heart of these lies the ambition to be recognised not merely as a state, but as the nation-state of the Jewish people—a status formalised in the 2018 Jewish Nation-State Law. This law, passed by the Knesset, declared Israel as the exclusive national home of the Jewish people and downgraded the status of Arabic from an official language to one of 'special standing.' Though symbolic, it carries profound implications, entrenching legal inequalities and signalling a vision of the state that excludes its Arab citizens and Palestinians under occupation.
This internal legislative shift is mirrored by an external diplomatic campaign. Over recent decades, Israel has succeeded in breaking Arab consensus on Palestine by normalising ties with key Arab states. From the Camp David Accords with Egypt, to the Wadi Araba Treaty with Jordan, and more recently the Abraham Accords with the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan, Israel has progressively dismantled the historical Arab front against normalisation. The strategic result is twofold: the marginalisation of the Palestinian cause and the legitimisation of Israeli regional leadership.
Were it not for the Hamas-led attacks of 7 October 2023, more Arab states might have joined this path. Instead, the war on Gaza has crystallised a new phase in Israel's trajectory—one that moves beyond occupation to what many observers now describe as systematic ethnic cleansing, enabled by overwhelming Western support and in open defiance of international humanitarian law.
A regional reckoning
The current reality in Gaza, marked by mass displacement, destruction of infrastructure, and the collapse of humanitarian systems, represents more than a military campaign. It signals an Israeli strategy to permanently alter the demographics of Palestine, thereby resolving its so-called 'demographic dilemma' through force rather than negotiation. In this sense, Israel's hegemonic ambitions are not merely political—they are existential in their impact on others. The goal is not just influence, but erasure.
In comparison, Iran's project—however destabilising—is rooted in strategic depth and deterrence. It seeks influence without necessarily dismantling states. Israel, on the other hand, is now engaged in reshaping borders, narratives, and entire populations. Its expansionist logic, some fear, aligns with earlier Zionist visions of a Greater Israel stretching 'from the Nile to the Euphrates.'
This comparison is not meant to justify Iranian interference or downplay its impact. Iran's role in fuelling regional polarisation is real. But it does underscore the disparity in scope and intent. Where Iran seeks regional leverage, Israel appears to seek regional supremacy.
Conclusion: The anatomy of hegemony
Hegemony is not a static concept. It evolves with power, narrative, and opportunity. Many states, including Libya under Gaddafi, have sought regional influence, often projecting ideology or capital to assert leadership. Saudi Arabia exported Wahhabism; Qatar used the Muslim Brotherhood as a tool of soft power; the UAE has leveraged its economic might to counter revolutionary movements and reshape post-Arab Spring transitions.
Yet none of these actors pose the same existential threat to the region as Israel currently does. Israel's project, bolstered by diplomatic cover, military superiority, and ideological conviction, aims not just at dominance—but at the displacement and elimination of a people. The forced demographic restructuring of Palestine, should it continue unchecked, could serve as a blueprint for similar campaigns elsewhere.
If today Iran is the primary target of containment, tomorrow others may face the expansionist appetite of a state emboldened by impunity. The lessons of the Arab world's silence and complicity in the face of unfolding tragedy will not be forgotten.
In the end, the region must ask: is it hegemony we fear—or annihilation we are failing to prevent?