New Middle East

Extracted Attributes

• Geographic Scope

  Arab world, Iran, Turkey, Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Caucasus, and Central Asia

• Alternative Title

  The Great Middle East Project

• Descriptive Alias

  Global Balkans

• Originating Concept

  Greater Middle East

• Core Strategy (2006)

  Constructive Chaos

• Core Strategy (Modern)

  Economic prosperity and counter-extremism

Timeline

• Start of a series of regional conflicts in the Greater Middle East, heralded by the Iran-Iraq War. (Source: Wikipedia)

  1980-01-01

• The term 'Greater Middle East' is introduced in a paper by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (Source: Wikipedia)

  2004-03-01

• The Greater Middle East proposal is presented as part of the United States' preparatory work for the G8 summit. (Source: Wikipedia)

  2004-06-01

• Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice presents the vision for a 'New Middle East' in Dubai. (Source: Wikipedia)

  2006-06-01

• Rice repeats the 'New Middle East' vision during the 2006 Lebanon War, describing the conflict as 'birth pangs' of the new region. (Source: Wikipedia)

  2006-07-01

• The October 7th attacks by Hamas trigger the Israel-Hamas War, impacting the regional vision of prosperity. (Source: Document 11f372d8-60f3-4ba4-8bf9-845991dab8cd)

  2023-10-07

Greater Middle East

The Greater Middle East is a geopolitical term introduced in March 2004 in a paper published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as part of the United States' preparatory work for the Group of Eight summit of June 2004. The paper presented a proposal for sweeping change in the way the West deals with the Middle East and North Africa. It also denotes a vaguely defined region encompassing the Arab world, along with Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Israel, Cyprus, and sometimes the Caucasus and Central Asia. Adam Garfinkle of the Foreign Policy Research Institute defined the Greater Middle East as the MENA region together with the Caucasus and Central Asia. The future of the Greater Middle East has sometimes been referred to as the "new Middle East", first so by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who presented the second-term Bush administration's vision for the region's future in June 2006 in Dubai. Rice said it would be achieved through "constructive chaos", a phrase she repeated a few weeks later during a joint press conference with Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert when the 2006 Lebanon War had broken out; the meaning of this phrase and the Bush administration's vision have been much debated since. The efforts to achieve this new Middle East are sometimes called "The Great Middle East Project". Former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski stated that a "political awakening" is taking place in this region which may be an indicator of the multipolar world that is now developing. He alluded to the Greater Middle East as the "Global Balkans", and as a control lever on an area he refers to as Eurasia. According to Andrew Bacevich's 2016 book America's War for the Greater Middle East, this region is the theater for a series of conflicts dating back to 1980, which heralded the start of the Iran–Iraq War.

Web Search Results

• Greater Middle East - Wikipedia

  The future of the Greater Middle East has sometimes been referred to as the "new Middle East", first so by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who presented the second-term Bush administration's vision for the region's future in June 2006 in Dubai. Rice said it would be achieved through "constructive chaos", a phrase she repeated a few weeks later during a joint press conference with Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert when the 2006 Lebanon War had broken out; the meaning of this phrase and the Bush administration's vision have been much debated since. The efforts to achieve this new Middle East are sometimes called "The Great Middle East Project". [...] The Greater Middle East is a geopolitical term introduced in March 2004 in a paper published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as part of the United States' preparatory work for the Group of Eight summit of June 2004. The paper presented a proposal for sweeping change in the way the West deals with the Middle East and North Africa. It also denotes a vaguely defined region encompassing the Arab world, along with Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Israel, Cyprus, and sometimes the Caucasus and Central Asia. Adam Garfinkle of the Foreign Policy Research Institute defined the Greater Middle East as the MENA region together with the Caucasus and Central Asia. [...] 5. ^ "The Greater Middle East Initiative". Al Jazeera. Archived from the original on 7 April 2022. Retrieved 31 May 2021. 6. ^ Stewart, Dona J. (2005). "The Greater Middle East and Reform in the Bush Administration's Ideological Imagination". Geographical Review. 95 (3): 400–424. Bibcode "Bibcode (identifier)"):2005GeoRv..95..400S. doi "Doi (identifier)"):10.1111/j.1931-0846.2005.tb00373.x. ISSN "ISSN (identifier)") 0016-7428. JSTOR "JSTOR (identifier)") 30034245. 7. ^ Kamal, Baher (14 December 2015). "Silence, Please! A New Middle East Is in the Making". Inter Press Service. Archived from the original on 30 August 2019. Retrieved 30 August 2019.

• Meet the New Middle East, Same as the Old Middle East

  Given the tumultuous events of the past several years, it is tempting to herald the emergence of a “new Middle East.” But how many times have we heard that? The Six-Day War was thought by some to be a critical turning point—surely Israel’s Arab opponents would make peace now?—and it didn’t happen. Ditto the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, the first Gulf War, the Oslo Accords, the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the Arab Spring. And yet events like the Sept. 11 attacks, the Syrian civil war, the Oct. 7, 2023, assault by Hamas, the ongoing genocide in Gaza, the recurring destruction of Lebanon, the Houthis’ attacks on Red Sea shipping, and the recent airstrikes on Iran keep happening. [...] Given the tumultuous events of the past several years, it is tempting to herald the emergence of a “new Middle East.” But how many times have we heard that? The Six-Day War was thought by some to be a critical turning point—surely Israel’s Arab opponents would make peace now?—and it didn’t happen. Ditto the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, the first Gulf War, the Oslo Accords, the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the Arab Spring. And yet events like the Sept. 11 attacks, the Syrian civil war, the Oct. 7, 2023, assault by Hamas, the ongoing genocide in Gaza, the recurring destruction of Lebanon, the Houthis’ attacks on Red Sea shipping, and the recent airstrikes on Iran keep happening. [...] We have seen extraordinary developments over the past decade—and especially since Oct. 7, 2023—but the underlying conditions that have made the region so conflict-ridden for so long remain unchanged. Some of the players are gone, others have gained or lost power, and several have embraced different policies, but the more fundamental sources of instability are still intact.

• THE NEW MIDDLE EAST

  realities of the new Middle East as it is now. The three clusters of countries— Iran–Iraq, Lebanon–Syria, Palestine– Israel— and three critical, cross- cutting issues— nuclear proliferation, sectarian-ism, the challenge of political reform— define the new Middle East. These are not, of course, the only problems with which the United States will have to deal in the coming years in the region. Egypt, for example, will almost certainly experience a suc-cession crisis that is likely to call into question anew the relationship between the security establishment and civilian authorities. Gulf countries will have to cope with the increasing imbalance between inert political systems and rapidly changing societies and economies. [...] This more troubled new Middle East has obviously not been created solely by U.S. poli-cies. Regional state and nonstate actors have shaped and continue to shape its changing real-ity. But U.S. policies have been a major factor. The underlying thrust of those policies has been confrontation, including the use or at least the threat of force—“preemptive action,” in the words of the September 2002 National Security Strategy. The United States has used force in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in many arenas of the war on terror. The Bush administration also relied on other forms of coercion, calling for UN Security Council resolutions condemning Syria and Iran, or imposing unilateral sanctions, such as those on the Hamas- controlled Palestinian Authority and on the Revolutionary Guards in Iran. [...] Other problems cutting across the region include still rampant population growth in many countries and the inability of the region’s economies, even those of the richest countries, to absorb a labor force that is either overabundant or educationally unqualified. But these are long-standing, chronic situations, not new problems that require a rethinking of U.S. policy. We have left out from this list the problem of terrorism for several reasons, although it is as much part of the new Middle East as it was of the old one. First, terrorism is not a sepa-rate problem to be tackled through a war, but can only be addressed by the entire set of U.S.

• The New Middle East: geoeconomics driving power and partnerships

  ## The emerging regional landscape The Middle East is becoming a more multipolar and strategically complex region, where economic and technological ambitions advance alongside persistent security risks. The region is making progress in development; underlying risks and structural challenges, however, continue to constrain its resilience. [...] ECPR Blog - The Loop Logo - White # The New Middle East: geoeconomics driving power and partnerships The Middle East is entering a phase of recalibration. As Gulf powers prioritise stability and de-escalation, says Nadeem Ahmed Moonakal, they are also positioning themselves to play a leading role in global AI, which is likely to have a profound influence on the regional geopolitical landscape ## From security-driven politics to geoeconomic considerations [...] Gulf states are increasingly seeking to stabilise the region, lower conflict risks, and prioritise economic and technological transformation. The Saudi-Iran détente and the subsequent thaw in relations exemplify this trend. Washington, for its part, continues to act as the net security provider but is increasingly relying on Gulf states to manage regional tensions. This evolving relationship is less hierarchical and becoming more mutually negotiated; Gulf states intend to exercise greater diplomatic autonomy and influence, while the US exerts its military power, reflecting a new form of strategic interdependence. ## The emerging regional landscape

• The New Middle East

  2021 another, and President Trump has made no secret of his desire to bring back many more troops from the Middle East. [...] Since 2015, the conflict between these two groups of states and their allies had dominated the region’s politics and was primarily fought out in the civil wars in Yemen and Syria. But there was also a third, much smaller camp consisting of Turkey and the Emirate of Qatar. Since the turmoil of the Arab Spring in 2011 and 2012, Ankara and Doha had jointly supported Islamists of various stripes in their struggles for power in Syria, Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and elsewhere. Turkey and Qatar evidently hoped that their allies would take power and then rely on close relations with their former supporters. In this way, Turkey and Qatar sought to become leading powers in the Middle East. [...] only state ally and the Islamic Republic had been working closely with it since 1980.