The “New Middle East:” A Multiple Choice Question?

I’ve seen the phrase “New Middle East” thrown around increasingly in the last couple days (just google it if you don’t believe me). Condoleeza Rice and the US hope that this “New Middle East,” (which Rice said was merely experiencing “birth pains”), will have the US as ultimate authority, and without the existence of Hezbollah and any other organized opposition to US/Israeli policies and actions.

Tanya Reinhart writes of this in ElectronicLebanon.net:

For the U.S., the Middle East is a “strategic playing field”, where the game is establishing full U.S. domination. The U.S. already controls Iraq and Afghanistan, and considers Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and a few other states as friendly cooperating regimes. But even with this massive foothold, full U.S. domination is still far from established.
…
From Bush’s perspective, he only has two years to consolidate his vision of complete U.S. control of the Middle East, and to do that, all seeds of resistance should be crushed in a devastating blow that will make it clear to every single Arab that obeying the master is the only way to stay alive. If Israel is willing to do the job, and crush not only the Palestinians, but also Lebanon and Hezbollah, then the U.S., torn from the inside by growing resentment over Bush’s wars, and perhaps unable to send new soldiers to be killed for this cause right now, will give Israel all the backing it can.

I think it’s fairly obvious that the US doesn’t control Iraq; I doubt that it controls Afghanistan either, but Reinhart’s point is clear. It should also be made clear, however, that the US is not the only player vying for a “New Middle East.” In fact, Hezbollah’s attack could be viewed not as the action of an isolated organization but as part of a different attempt at changing the balance of power in the Middle East. Understandably, this analysis is getting much less coverage in the mainstream and even the alternative/independent media.

The article “Hizbollah Strike Marks the Emergence of a New Regional Coalition Against Israel,” published in Semitism.net, explains:

Whoever planned the attack took an astute read of regional politics. Iran and Syria have been strengthening their ties in the face of an American Mideast policy that poses a clear threat to both of them. Israel’s actions in the West Bank continue to roil popular sentiment throughout the region, and any entity that strikes a blow against Israel is lionized on the Arab street. For Hizbollah to come to the aid of Hamas at this time sends a message to the U.S., Israel and the Arab world that the Iran/Syria/Hizbollah axis is willing to stand up to foreign powers and defend of the victims of Israeli aggression.
…
But, from a strategic viewpoint, it seems to me that the militants (Hamas and Hizbollah) and the radical Arab states (Iran and Syria) are likely to come out ahead when this is over. They will either draw Israel into a very undesirable ground war in Lebanon; or, if Israel agrees to stop bombing when the U.N. monitors show up, they will have sent an important message: if it wants to try to push Hamas around, Israel will have to deal with other regional powers.

Well, it’s clear that there is more at work in the Middle East than US hegemony. Other groups are—for better or worse—trying to shape the Middle East to their interests as well. But should we support any or all attempts to resist US/Israel domination of the region? Maybe it’s just because of my Western indoctrination or whatever but Islamic fundamentalism does not immediately strike me as a surefire way to peace and justice in the Middle East. I mean, in the US, right-wing Christianity has proven to be a great organizing tool, but it has had disastrous results from the perspective of those who struggle against racism and imperialism.