The Middle East without Israel: A Counterfactual Analysis from a Geopolitical Perspective

Faced with the endless discussions that portray Israel as the main source of instability in the Middle East, there is a need to pose a different question. This text emerges from that impulse: an analytical dystopia that seeks to test that premise.

PART 1 — Historical Foundations and the Myth of “Automatic Peace”

The hypothesis of a Middle East without the State of Israel is often based on an apparently logical intuition: if one of the region’s most visible conflicts were to disappear, the system as a whole would tend toward stability. However, this assumption rests on an oversimplification of both history and the political structure of the Middle East. A more rigorous analysis suggests that regional conflict not only predates the creation of Israel but originates in deeper historical processes whose influence remains decisive today.

The fundamental turning point lies in the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire following World War I. For centuries, the Ottoman Empire exercised relatively flexible control over a vast diversity of peoples, religions, and social structures in the Middle East. While not free from tensions, this system provided a relatively stable political framework that allowed multiple identities to coexist under a common imperial authority.

The collapse of the Ottoman Empire did not lead to an organic transition toward consolidated nation-states, but rather to a process of territorial reconfiguration driven by external powers. The United Kingdom and France, in particular, played a central role in this geopolitical redesign, prioritizing their strategic interests over local realities. The 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement exemplifies this logic: it established colonial spheres of influence without adequately considering the distribution of ethnic, religious, and tribal groups.

The result was the creation of states whose borders did not correspond to pre-existing political identities. In many cases, communities with deep historical differences were incorporated into the same state structures, while others were divided among different countries. This territorial fragmentation generated a structural basis for conflict that later manifested in internal tensions, civil wars, and interstate rivalries.

In this context, it is problematic to attribute regional instability exclusively to the existence of Israel. Rather, Israel emerges as an actor within a system already characterized by institutional fragility and overlapping identities in conflict. The narrative that portrays Israel as the original cause of regional disorder tends to overlook these prior dynamics, simplifying a far more complex historical process.

From this foundation, it becomes clear why the idea of “automatic peace” in the absence of Israel lacks solid grounding. The main fault lines of the Middle East—particularly the rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia—have roots in religious, political, and geostrategic divisions independent of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Sunni-Shia divide, for example, dates back to disputes over leadership succession in the 7th century, long before the emergence of modern states in the region.

Moreover, tensions between regional powers cannot be explained solely in ideological or religious terms. Factors such as control over energy resources, trade routes, influence over strategic territories, and power projection play a central role. Even without Israel, strong incentives for competition and conflict among regional actors would remain.

PART 2 — Power Vacuums, Regional Rivalry, and Proxy Wars

If instability in the Middle East does not originate with Israel, the next analytical step is to consider how regional power would be structured in its absence. The key concept here is that of a strategic power vacuum. In geopolitics, spaces without a dominant actor tend to become arenas of competition among multiple forces seeking to expand their influence.

In a counterfactual scenario without Israel, the Levant would almost certainly not have remained neutral or stable. Instead, it would have become an arena of contestation among several regional powers with divergent interests. The most likely actor to attempt to consolidate influence would be Iran, which since the 1979 revolution has pursued a geopolitical strategy aimed at extending its reach toward Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, ultimately seeking access to the Mediterranean.

Without Israel as a military and technological counterweight, Iran might have encountered fewer obstacles in advancing this strategy. However, such expansion would not have gone uncontested. Saudi Arabia, as the leading Sunni power, would likely have intensified its role as a regional counterbalance, engaging in indirect competition for influence.

A third actor—often underestimated—would also play a significant role: Turkey. As the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey maintains historical and geographical ties to the region. In a scenario without Israel, it would likely have expanded its influence, seeking to reclaim aspects of its former geopolitical reach.

The interaction among these three actors suggests the emergence of a highly competitive multipolar system, characterized by instability and the absence of a clear balance of power. In such a system, proxy wars would become central, as regional powers support local actors—militias, insurgent groups, or allied governments—to project influence without direct confrontation.

PART 3 — Afghanistan, Modern Jihadism, and the Transformation of Jihad

The emergence of modern jihadism cannot be fully understood without examining the Afghan war of the 1980s. The Soviet intervention in Afghanistan triggered a transnational mobilization of fighters, leading to the formation of networks that later evolved into organizations such as Al-Qaeda.

This development marked a shift from localized conflicts to a globalized form of ideological violence. Crucially, it demonstrates that modern jihadism did not arise as a direct consequence of Israel’s existence, but rather from broader geopolitical dynamics linked to the Cold War and state collapse.

Understanding this phenomenon requires analyzing the concept of jihad. Traditionally, jihad referred to a spiritual and ethical struggle. However, radical movements reinterpreted it as a justification for armed violence, transforming it into a political and ideological tool.

This reinterpretation enabled the emergence of global jihadist organizations. Later developments, such as ISIS, demonstrated how these movements could evolve further, exploiting power vacuums to establish proto-state structures.

PART 4 — Migration, Minorities, Authoritarianism, and Social Structures

The internal structure of Middle Eastern societies is another critical dimension. Migration flows from Muslim-majority countries are driven by structural factors such as war, economic instability, demographic pressure, and weak institutions. These dynamics would persist even in the absence of Israel.

The situation of minorities—Kurds, Druze, and Christians—illustrates the region’s internal complexity. Kurds, in particular, represent one of the largest stateless peoples, engaged in ongoing struggles for autonomy or independence.

Authoritarian regimes have long maintained stability through repression, accumulating tensions that later erupt into conflict, as seen during the Arab Spring. Additionally, clan- and tribe-based social structures complicate state-building, as loyalties often lie outside formal institutions.

PART 5 — Conclusion: Structural Complexity and the Limits of Simplification

The counterfactual exercise of imagining a Middle East without Israel highlights a fundamental issue: the tendency to explain regional conflict through a single factor is insufficient. Instability arises from a complex interplay of historical, geopolitical, ideological, and social dynamics.

The collapse of the Ottoman order, regional rivalries, the rise of jihadism, internal social tensions, and weak state structures all contribute to a system of persistent instability. In this context, the idea of automatic peace without Israel does not hold.

Rather than eliminating conflict, Israel’s absence would likely have produced a more fragmented, unpredictable, and volatile regional system. Israel should therefore be understood not as the origin of instability, but as one actor within a broader and pre-existing structure of conflict.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)