The Middle East Is Entering a Phase of “Transition Toward a Global Order”

The issue is no longer limited to who prevails in one battlefield or suffers defeat in another. Rather, the fundamental question concerns how the very “structure of order” that has governed the Middle East for decades is being reconstituted. According to this report, these transformations are unfolding amid the decline of centralized international decision-making and the growing plurality of influential regional centers.
In this context, Islam Times conducted an interview with Ziad Al-Hafez, Secretary-General of the Arab National Congress. In this interview, he presents a macro-level analysis that goes beyond temporary events and undertakes a dissection of the historical and strategic structure underlying these transformations.
Al-Hafez believes that what is unfolding today represents a transition from an “order based on unipolar hegemony” toward an “order of collapsing centrality and redistribution of influence.” Within this framework, the United States is no longer capable of managing the Middle East as a system governed by fixed rules. Instead, Washington is compelled to engage with a fluid, multi-centered environment open to contradictory possibilities. According to him, this transformation is not a transient phenomenon, but rather reflects a structural crisis within the Western model for managing the international order.
He emphasizes that the “rise of Iran’s power” should not be interpreted as a traditional form of superiority, but rather as a manifestation of a “transformation in the function of regional agency.” In this context, Tehran has moved from a position of “calculated reaction” to one of “producing balance.” This signifies the attainment of an ability to influence the very fabric of the rules of engagement, rather than merely affecting their final outcomes.
Regarding the strategy of the “unity of fronts,” Al-Hafez believes that this concept is not merely a form of operational coordination, but rather a manifestation of the collapse of the boundaries between political geography and military geography. Within this framework, the region is turning into an “interconnected battlefield” that can neither be fragmented nor isolated. According to him, this transformation fundamentally alters the rules governing the management of war and causes any local escalation to possess the potential to evolve into a comprehensive regional reaction.
He notes that this field reality has effectively brought an end to the traditional model based on separating conflict into distinct and containable fronts. Consequently, the region has entered into the logic of the “forced intertwinement of crises.”
With regard to the Israeli regime, Al-Hafez argues that its crisis has gone beyond purely military dimensions and has evolved into a “crisis in strategic function.” Accordingly, the traditional instruments of superiority are no longer capable of decisively settling battles or reproducing deterrence in the conventional manner of the past.
He considers the most dangerous development to be the erosion of the ability to engage in “strategic time management” — meaning that the capacity to end conflicts within a defined temporal and operational limit has been severely weakened. Yet this was precisely one of the fundamental pillars of Israel’s security doctrine.
He also points out that the home front has become a structural component of the battle equation, to the extent that separating the domestic arena from the external one is no longer possible. This reality imposes increasing constraints upon the political and military decision-making apparatus of the regime.
Regarding the role of the United States, Al-Hafez describes the current phase as a moment of transition from “organized hegemony” to “fractured hegemony.” In this context, Washington is no longer able to translate its military superiority into a stable political order across the region.
He recalls that the policies of Donald Trump contributed to accelerating this process by dismantling traditional containment mechanisms without offering stabilizing alternatives. According to this report, this approach led to the rapid exposure of the limitations of American power. He describes this condition as a “loss of the ability to transform power into order,” which, in fact, constitutes the central core of the current crisis.
Regarding Western discourse, Al-Hafez emphasizes that a growing gap is becoming evident between official political discourse and academic and strategic analysis. Official discourse continues to insist on employing the language of superiority, while analysts have begun acknowledging the limitations of the outdated model and have accepted that the world is effectively moving toward unstable pluralism.
He stresses that the concept of “victory” is no longer tied to achieving total military decisiveness. Rather, it is measured by the extent to which actors are capable of imposing the “rules of engagement” and possessing the power to strategically paralyze the enemy.
According to him, the fate of modern wars is no longer determined solely on the battlefield; instead, it is shaped within the perceptual, media, and psychological spheres — where field realities intertwine with competing narratives to produce the final outcomes.
Ziad Al-Hafez concluded by firmly emphasizing that the Middle East has entered into a phase of “structural transformation in the global order.” In this process, the region is no longer merely an arena of conflict; rather, it has become one of the principal laboratories for the reconstruction of the international system’s structure. This condition is unfolding amid the collapse of the unipolar order and the emergence of unstable compulsory balances that simultaneously redefine the meaning of power, sovereignty, and deterrence.