I first wrote a version of this essay in October 2025, when the ink was still fresh on what was being celebrated as a historic peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.
At the time, diplomats and commentators across the world hailed the agreement as the beginning of a “new Middle East.” The region, we were told, was finally moving beyond decades of conflict toward an era of stability and cooperation.
I submitted that essay to several publications.
None of them published it.
Today, as missiles and drones once again streak across Middle Eastern skies and the region finds itself staring at the possibility of a wider war, I am revisiting the argument I made then. Because the problem that I described has not changed — and neither has the fundamental solution.
The Middle East is not suffering from a shortage of peace agreements.
It is suffering from a shortage of sovereignty, unity, and strategic vision.
Peace That Is Granted Can Always Be Withdrawn
Across Middle Eastern capitals, peace agreements are often celebrated as historic achievements. Leaders pose for photographs, diplomats speak of a “new era,” and the international community congratulates itself for stabilizing a volatile region.
Yet behind the spectacle lies a question that is rarely asked:
What exactly has the Middle East done to earn this peace?
History is clear about one brutal truth: sovereignty has never been given in charity. It is taken, defended, and preserved by those willing to sacrifice for it.
The modern Middle East, however, inherited its sovereignty rather than forging it.
When the Ottoman Empire collapsed, the region was carved into states not by its own peoples but by colonial administrators. The borders were drawn in European capitals to serve foreign strategic interests. The infamous Sykes–Picot arrangement ensured that the region would emerge fragmented — divided into states too small and too dependent to act as a unified geopolitical force.
Independence eventually arrived, but it arrived as a transfer of administration rather than the result of a unified struggle.
As a result, many Middle Eastern states inherited sovereignty they never had to collectively defend. And sovereignty that is granted without sacrifice often remains fragile, conditional, and reversible.
A Century of Fragmentation
What we see today is not accidental.
The fragmentation of the Middle East has always served a strategic purpose.
Divided states compete for external patronage rather than cooperating for collective security. Rivalries replace coordination. Diplomacy becomes reactive rather than strategic.
Within this environment, Israel has emerged as the most coherent strategic actor in the region.
This observation is not a moral judgment. Nations pursue their interests; that is the nature of international politics. Israel has pursued its interests with clarity, discipline, and long-term planning.
The Middle East, by contrast, has too often pursued prestige without strategy.
While Israel invested in state capacity, technological advancement, and long-term geopolitical planning, many Middle Eastern states invested in appearances — building modern skylines while leaving their regional institutions hollow.
The result is an expanding strategic imbalance.
Israel increasingly operates as a regional hub of military, technological, and economic power integrated into Western strategic frameworks. Meanwhile, the Middle East remains politically fragmented and strategically reactive.
In geopolitics, vacuums do not remain empty.
They are filled by those with vision.
The Illusion of Stability
Peace agreements and normalization deals are frequently presented as evidence that the region is moving toward stability.
But stability built on imbalance is rarely permanent.
A peace that is granted rather than negotiated between equal actors often functions less like a settlement and more like a temporary truce.
The deeper structural questions remain unresolved:
- Who sets the regional agenda?
- Who defines the security architecture of the Middle East?
- Who determines the economic and technological future of the region?
At present, Middle Eastern states are rarely the ones answering these questions.
Instead, the regional order is increasingly shaped by non-Middle Eastern actors — Israel, Iran, and external great powers whose priorities do not necessarily align with those of the region’s own populations.
The tragedy is not merely that this imbalance exists.
The tragedy is that the Middle East possesses every ingredient necessary to correct it — yet has failed to mobilize them.
A Region Rich in Power but Poor in Coordination
Few regions on earth possess the strategic advantages of the Middle East:
• A shared language.
• A shared cultural history.
• Control of vital global trade routes.
• Vast natural resources that still power much of the global economy.
Geographically, the Middle East sits at the intersection of Africa, Europe, and Asia — a position that historically made it a center of global commerce and intellectual exchange.
By every rational measure, this region should be shaping the global order rather than reacting to it.
Yet unity cannot be borrowed.
And power cannot be outsourced.
For decades, many Middle Eastern governments have sought legitimacy through external alliances rather than internal consolidation or regional cooperation.
Security has been outsourced.
Strategic planning has been replaced by short-term political survival.
The result is a region that often mistakes quiet for peace and foreign approval for success.
The Middle East’s Civilizational Responsibility
If the Middle East is to escape this cycle of fragmentation and dependency, it must first recognize a difficult truth:
Its fate is inseparable from the broader Muslim world.
When the Middle East fails, it does not fail alone. Its collapse would ripple across the global Muslim population. The reason is simple and unavoidable: Mecca and Medina lie in the heart of the Middle East.
These are not ordinary cities. They are the spiritual centers of gravity for nearly two billion Muslims. Every prayer, every pilgrimage, every sacred rhythm of Muslim life ultimately points toward these places. That fact alone binds the fate of the Middle East to the destiny of the global Muslim population.
Governments and societies in the region may not always fully appreciate this reality, but they cannot escape it. Their historical relevance and political legitimacy are inseparable from the guardianship of these sacred centers.
If the Middle East fails to demonstrate that it can protect and secure Mecca and Medina, pressure from the broader Muslim population could eventually force a shift in guardianship. Such a development would mark a historic rupture — one that could fundamentally reshape the political order and leave the region diminished in influence and legitimacy.
No civilization easily tolerates the loss of its sacred heart.
But the opposite is also true.
If the Middle East recognizes the magnitude of the responsibility it carries — and rises to meet it — the region could become something far greater than a collection of fragile and competing states. It could become the organizing center of a global Muslim civilization.
A Question of Civilizational Scale
The solution cannot come from another peace conference, another foreign mediator, or another temporary ceasefire.
The problem is civilizational in scale — and the solution must be civilizational as well.
For more than a century, the Muslim world has behaved like a collection of disconnected states rather than a coherent geopolitical community.
The question that now arises is simple but profound:
Can the Middle East rise to its responsibility and become the unifying factor that the global Muslim world desperately needs?
Whether that fragmentation can be overcome — and whether the Muslim world can rediscover a framework for unity — is the question that will determine the future not only of the Middle East, but of the Muslim world itself.
That question is the subject of the next essay.