The B-2 Gamble: How Israel is Rewriting Middle East Power Politics
What distinguishes this moment is not that the United States is grooming a proxy to police the region — Washington did so in the 1950s with the Shah of Iran after the ousting of nationalist leader Mohammad Mosaddegh. The difference now is that this is not a US design imposed on Israel — it is Israel's own blueprint, carried out with Washington's endorsement.
The evidence is no longer subtle. Just weeks ago, Admiral James Kilby, acting US Chief of Naval Operations, told Congress that America's military operations in the Arabian Sea were rapidly depleting its arsenal at an unsustainable rate. Over a billion dollars' worth of missiles had been launched against Houthi rebels, with three Super Hornet jets lost in three months — one due to friendly fire. Kilby's message was calculated and unambiguous: while US interests in the Gulf and Middle East remain vital, the costs have become prohibitive. Perhaps it is time for a regional actor to shoulder that burden.
That actor is, unmistakably, Israel. US lawmakers are already moving in that direction. Following recent American strikes on Iranian assets, Congress proposed new legislation granting President Donald Trump authority to transfer advanced strategic weaponry to Tel Aviv — including the formidable B-2 stealth bomber and GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs, capable of destroying targets buried sixty metres underground. This is not routine arms support. It is about enabling Israel with autonomous deterrent capabilities, easing Washington's political load regardless of who sits in the Oval Office.
The so-called 'Bunker Buster Act,' backed by Democratic Congressman Josh Gottheimer and Republican Mike Lawler, seeks to give the president sweeping powers to ensure Israel's readiness for any scenario should Iran advance its nuclear programme. If enacted, it would transform the Middle East's military landscape. For Israel, the implications would be historic. Acquiring B-2 strategic bombers would allow Tel Aviv to enforce its long-held doctrine of 'open skies' — ensuring uncontested air dominance from Lebanon to Iran via Syria and Iraq. This would not only disrupt supply lines to Hezbollah and Hamas but would also grant Israel a definitive military veto over any regional force aspiring to strategic parity.
Trump and Netanyahu are perfectly aligned in this vision. Their recent summit — the third in just six months — marked a turning point in US-Israeli relations. Trump saw in Israel's role during the strikes on Iranian assets confirmation of Tel Aviv's enduring strategic value. Notably, no global power — not even China or Russia — condemned the attacks. This silence was telling, reinforcing deterrence and giving Trump a window to advance a Middle East order grounded in preemption and militarised regional policing.
At the core of the Trump-Netanyahu dialogue was a pragmatic and unapologetic vision for the region: to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions through a binding deal that curbs its regional influence; to stabilise Syria under pro-Western — or at least anti-Iranian — leadership; to integrate defence systems and economic corridors under an expanded Abraham Accords framework; to marginalise Chinese influence through deeper military ties with Gulf states; and to preserve Israel's absolute military and technological edge.
For Israel, the immediate challenge is not competing with Gulf states for investments or high-level visits. Its real dilemma lies in defining its role within this emerging order while avoiding premature confrontations. Historically, Israel has operated as Washington's indispensable regional asset, equipped with one of the world's most advanced military machines, backed by extensive Western intelligence networks. In contrast, even the wealthiest Gulf states — led by Saudi Arabia — remain militarily vulnerable, a condition unlikely to change despite multi-billion-dollar arms purchases.
Within this emerging structure, Israel is positioned to become the frontline executor of US interests — at least until tensions ease and Iran's nuclear file is closed. To solidify this role, Israel must progress along three tracks: maintaining its independent military superiority, now bolstered by the proposed B-2 transfer; pursuing pragmatic relations with regional powers like Turkey to prevent destabilising flare-ups; and embedding itself within new regional economic frameworks by leveraging its unmatched technological base.
Yet none of this is inevitable. History consistently reminds us that no geopolitical vision, however heavily armed, is immune to resistance. The region's future will hinge on whether its nations possess the resolve, strategic cohesion, and unity to challenge this vision — before Israel secures uncontested authority over the Middle East's airspace, politics, and resources. The clock, however, is ticking.
Dr. Hatem Sadek, Professor at Helwan University
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Egypt Independent
11 hours ago
- Egypt Independent
The US government has declared war on the very idea of climate change
Americans are used to whiplash in their climate policy. The US has been in and out and in and out again of the key Paris climate agreement over the past four presidencies. But in his second administration, President Donald Trump is not just approaching climate science with skepticism. Instead, his administration is moving to destroy the methods by which his or any future administration can respond to climate change. These moves, which are sure to be challenged in court, extend far beyond Trump's well-documented antipathy toward solar and wind energy and his pledges to drill ever more oil even though the US is already the world's largest oil producer. His Environmental Protection Agency announced plans this week to declare that greenhouse gas emissions do not endanger humans, a move meant to pull the rug out from under nearly all environmental regulation related to the climate. But that's just one data point. There are many others: ► Instead of continuing a push away from coal, the Trump administration wants to do a U-turn; Trump has signed executive orders intended to boost the coal industry and has ordered the EPA to end federal limits on coal- and gas-fired power-plant pollution that's been tied to climate change. ► Tax credits for electric vehicles persisted during Trump's first term before they were expanded during Joe Biden's presidency. Now, Republicans are abruptly ending them next month. ► The administration is also ending Biden-era US government incentives to bring renewable energy projects online, a move that actually appears to be driving up the cost of electricity. ► Republicans in Congress and Trump enacted legislation to strip California of its authority to ban the sale of new gas-powered vehicles beginning in 2035. ► Trump is also expected to overturn national tailpipe standards enacted under Biden's EPA and is also to challenge California's long-held power to regulate tailpipe emissions. ► The authors of a congressionally mandated report on climate change were all fired; previous versions of the report, the National Climate Assessment, which showed likely effects from climate change across the country, have been hidden from view on government websites. ► Other countries, large and small, will gather in Brazil later this year for a consequential meeting on how the world should respond to climate change. Rather than play a leading role — or any role at all — the US will not attend. ► Cuts to the federal workforce directly targeted offices and employees focused on climate change. The list goes on. But it is the Trump administration's move to undo the 'endangerment finding' that could have the most lasting effect. The 2009 declaration that planet-warming pollution from fossil fuels endangers human health is what allows the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Turning the EPA into a deregulatory agency Now, anticipating the end of that endangerment finding, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin bragged of the 'largest deregulatory action in the history of the United States.' That's the kind of statement that will excite people who don't see a threat from climate change and strike fear in the hearts of those who do. Zeldin is a former congressman with little background in environmental policy but a demonstrated loyalty to Trump. He has described his mandate at EPA less in terms of protecting the environment than in terms of unleashing businesses from regulation. The government's new climate report was written by skeptics The Trump administration is justifying its move to gut the endangerment finding based on a report it commissioned from five climate skeptics. After a public comment period, the Trump administration can move to undo the endangerment finding in the fall. It would essentially close off the Clean Air Act as a vehicle to combat climate change. Energy secretary has a unique take Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who made millions in the fracking industry, commissioned the report. In a preface, he did not deny that climate change exists. 'Climate change is real, and it deserves attention,' he wrote. 'But it is not the greatest threat facing humanity. That distinction belongs to global energy poverty.' In other words, Wright sees more damage to humans from cutting back on carbon emissions. That is a minority view in the scientific community, which has a much, much larger body of peer reviewed studies that raise the alarm about climate change. Most notably, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issues peer-reviewed reports with hundreds of authors from around world. The Trump administration has barred US government scientists from taking part in the next installment, due out in 2029. You don't need a government report to see the effects of climate change Katie Dykes, the commissioner of Connecticut's Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, told me that you no longer need a government report to see the effects of changing climate. 'We see that the impacts of climate change have become part of everyday lives of our residents and our communities,' Dykes said. 'In ways that scientists were predicting years ago, we're seeing those impacts are happening faster and they're more severe than we had anticipated.' By moving to declare that greenhouse gas emissions don't endanger humans, the Trump administration is shifting the burden for dealing with climate change. 'This effort to undo this long-standing framework is really abandoning our communities and our residents to shoulder these costs and these impacts of climate change,' Dykes said. Those include health risks like respiratory illness, safety risks from extreme weather events, and impacts on infrastructure, housing and neighborhoods. 'We've seen these impacts already in our state in terms of extreme heat and drought, wildfires and flooding,' Dykes said. 'Seeing EPA walk away from decades of their core mission of protecting public health, reducing pollution and setting common sense standards at a national level is really concerning,' she added. Cows graze in a field near the coal-fueled Oak Grove Power Plant on April 29, 2024 in Robertson County, Texas./File A legal document, not a scientific one The Trump administration's report should not be viewed as a scientific document, according to Andrew Dessler, director of the Texas Center for Extreme Weather at Texas A&M University. 'Their goal is not to weigh the evidence fairly but to build the strongest possible case for CO2's innocence,' he told my colleague Ella Nilsen. 'This is a fundamental departure from the norms of science.' Nilsen reached out to numerous scientists after the report's release. Phil Duffy, the chief scientist at Spark Climate Solutions, a nonprofit focused on climate change, told her tens of thousands of Americans die every year as a result of particulate pollution, but the numbers have declined as the US has reduced its dependence on coal. The Trump administration would reverse that trend. Michael Mann, director of the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media, sees a hostility to science in the Trump administration. 'Not since Stalin and Soviet Lysenkoism have we seen such a brazen effort to misrepresent science in service of an ideological agenda,' Mann told Nilsen, referring to the disastrous effects of political interference in the scientific process in the Soviet Union.
Egypt Independent
13 hours ago
- Egypt Independent
Suez Canal Authority responds to Trump's request for free passage for US ships
The Suez Canal Authority affirmed its equal treatment for all countries and stressed that the canal is non-politicized, in its response to US President Donald Trump's request for free passage for US ships through the canal, RT reported on Tuesday. The Chairman of the Suez Canal Authority, Osama Rabie, explained that 'Egypt, as a country, respects charters and treaties, including the 1888 Treaty of Constantinople, which stipulates non-discrimination between the flags of ships and their countries.' 'The canal does not discriminate between the services provided to ships based on the nationality of their countries, and provides consistent services to all ships, regardless of their country and whether or not they have friendly relations with Egypt,' he added. 'The Authority has decided to reduce transit fees for large container ships, with a capacity exceeding 130,000 tons, by 15 percent for a period of three months, with the aim of accelerating their return to the waterway.' 'However, this came out of a security concern, not an economic one,' he noted. He concluded by saying, 'This period may be extended or the fee reductions increased, depending on circumstances, but there are currently no plans to offer additional reductions.' Last April, in a phone call with his Egyptian counterpart, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Trump announced that he was seeking to guarantee free passage for American ships through the Suez Canal. This followed Trump's call for free passage for American ships through the Panama and Suez canals.
Daily News Egypt
a day ago
- Daily News Egypt
Trump's Reckless Nuclear Poker: Why Is Israel Exempt from 'Peace Through Strength'?
At a time when some of the world's most dangerous decisions are made through Trump's social media platform, the lines between deterrence and political theatrics are dangerously blurred. Nuclear weapons have become bargaining chips, not last resorts. This article poses a simple yet urgent question: Why does Trump threaten Russia and Iran with force while remaining silent about Israel's actions in Gaza? Can peace be achieved through selective outrage? Can justice be built on exceptions? When power trumps principle, politics loses its meaning — and the world becomes hostage to personal whims. In a dramatic announcement that shook the international stage, President Donald Trump declared on 2 August 2025 that he had ordered the repositioning of two American nuclear submarines near Russian waters. The move was a direct response to former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's veiled threat to activate the 'Dead Hand' nuclear system. Simultaneously, Trump doubled down on threats against Iran, boasting of the June strikes that targeted its Fordow and Natanz nuclear facilities, and reaffirming his readiness to 'crush' any attempt by Tehran to revive its nuclear programme. Yet, amid these bold displays of nuclear brinkmanship, Trump continues to exempt his closest ally, Israel, from his 'peace through strength' doctrine. While he relentlessly threatens Russia and Iran, he opts for soft diplomatic language when it comes to Israel — even as the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza deepens, with over 60,000 reported deaths and critical aid convoys blocked at the Rafah border crossing. Since returning to the White House, Trump has framed 'peace through strength' as the cornerstone of his foreign policy. But the way he applies this strategy reveals deep inconsistencies. He uses it as a sword against adversaries and a shield to protect friends. His threats of annihilation towards Iran, and his warnings to Russia of being 'on the edge of disaster,' contrast starkly with his message to Netanyahu: 'I will be very tough with him,' he said in July — more of a friendly nudge than a real warning. Notably, these high-stakes messages are often delivered not through formal diplomatic channels, but via his Truth Social platform — turning matters of war and peace into viral posts. This contradiction reveals a dangerous flaw in Trump's approach to deterrence: it is driven not by principle, but by political convenience. Israel, shielded by bipartisan support in Congress and a powerful pro-Israel lobby, is treated as an exception. Washington deploys submarines for Moscow and missiles for Tehran — but when it comes to Israel, even in the face of immense civilian suffering in Gaza, it sends a diplomat and offers private negotiations. Experts are raising alarms. Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists warns that Trump's nuclear manoeuvres risk creating a 'commitment trap' that could spiral into uncontrollable escalation. Daryl Kimball from the Arms Control Association calls Trump's nuclear threats 'reckless and irresponsible' — especially when announced via smartphone. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has warned that nuclear escalation poses a global threat, while France and China continue to urge broader dialogue. The problem is not just a double standard — it is the message it sends to the world: that accountability depends on alliances, not actions. And this is not just morally troubling; it is geopolitically destabilising. In Iran's case, for instance, unconditional American support for Israel is used to justify Tehran's continued backing of Hamas and Hezbollah under the banner of 'resistance'. Trump's attempts to position himself as a peacemaker — a role he often cites when referencing his past mediation between India and Pakistan — are undermined by this selective morality. His bid to broker a regional settlement starting in Gaza sounds ambitious, but without holding Israel accountable, any peace initiative is doomed from the outset. He wants credit for extinguishing a fire without naming who lit the match. Inside the United States, growing bipartisan concern surrounds Trump's nuclear posturing. Lawmakers from both parties are now pushing to require congressional approval for any future nuclear military action, disturbed by the realisation that war may now be declared from a smartphone post. Perhaps the gravest concern is that Trump appears to operate not from strategic clarity but from a 'deal-making' mindset, as if global security were a casino table. But this time, he is not gambling with dollars or prestige — he is playing with humanity's future. The real question is not whether Trump might press the nuclear button — it is when, and why. Trump's version of 'peace through strength' seems to follow a troubling logic: threaten adversaries with bombs, warn Iran of annihilation, and gently ask Israel to 'ease up'. But in the eyes of the world, this equation is unravelling. Deterrence is not only about weapons — it is about moral consistency. Without that, 'peace through strength' becomes a dangerous illusion… and a blueprint for the next global disaster. Dr Marwa El-Shinawy: Academic and Writer
