Firas Abu Hilal, Editor in Chief of the Arabi21 website, stated that the project to divide the region is increasingly taking on a religious character, particularly under the administration of President Donald Trump and the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, both of which rely heavily on religious foundations.
In an article published on the site, he argued that statements made by prominent figures in Washington and Tel Aviv, including support for the “Greater Israel” project, reveal efforts to redraw the map of the region in a manner reminiscent of the Sykes-Picot agreement.
Below is the full text of the article.
A Religious War?
Several years ago, I interviewed an Arab diplomat who had previously held an international position about what is commonly referred to as “conspiracy theory”. He smiled knowingly and said: “There is no conspiracy theory. The conspiracy itself is a reality.”
I remember that conversation today, as the Israeli project supported by global powers, foremost among them the United States, is no longer merely a theory. It has become a tangible reality reflected not only in events, but also in the blunt statements issued by officials in the occupation state and in Western capitals.
Within the framework of this project, which once appeared as a theory and has now become openly declared slogans, the religious nature of the war against the region becomes increasingly visible.
For many years, numerous Arab analysts and writers, including the author of these lines, focused on political realism to understand developments, treating religious motives as marginal elements in the background of events. However, the administration of President Trump and the government of religious Zionism led by Netanyahu insist on the opposite.
Trump gathers Christian and Jewish religious and spiritual leaders in the White House to bless him and pray for victory over Iran. Meanwhile, prominent Republican Senator Lindsey Graham describes the confrontation as a religious war that will shape the future of the Middle East for a thousand years.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio also emphasised in his speech at the Munich Security Conference the Christian character of both Europe and the United States.
It is also worth noting the article by Dr Joseph Massad published on Arabi21 regarding the historical roots of the religious wars waged by European “white” powers against various non-white peoples and nations.
Since the outbreak of the genocidal war against Gaza in October 2023, Netanyahu and senior members of his government have not concealed the religious foundations behind the conflict.
The prime minister of what is often described as “the only democracy in the Middle East” declared that his war on Gaza and later on Iran was intended to eliminate the “Amalekites”, mentioned in the Torah as enemies of the Jews. This comes alongside countless statements by rabbis and religious Zionist politicians echoing similar themes.
The religious dimension of the war against the peoples of the region was further reinforced by remarks made by the U.S. ambassador to the occupation state, Mike Huckabee.
When the well-known American journalist Tucker Carlson asked about the legitimacy of the Polish-born Netanyahu’s claim to Jerusalem, Huckabee replied that he did not understand the question, because God had granted the land between the Euphrates and the Nile to the Jews. Therefore, according to his view, Israel has the right to control it, making the question itself meaningless.
The secular Israeli opposition leader, Yair Lapid, also commented on Huckabee’s remarks, saying that he supports the “Greater Israel” plan based on control over the region between the Euphrates and the Nile. He argued that “the biblical borders of the Land of Israel are clear”, adding that “our title deed to the Land of Israel is the Bible, and therefore the borders are the borders of the Bible”.
A New Sykes Picot
For many Arabs, particularly among nationalist and Islamic movements, the Sykes-Picot agreement has long been condemned as marking the end of the bonds they believe connect the peoples of the region, whether through Islam or Arab identity.
It is worth noting here the view of Arab historian Bashir Nafi, who argues that the actual arrangements establishing the modern states of the Arab region were made through the San Remo agreement during the conference held in 1920 by the victorious powers of the First World War.
Nevertheless, the Sykes-Picot Agreement continues to hold powerful symbolic significance in the Arab public imagination, as it represents what many consider the classic definition of a conspiracy. It is also viewed as the initial seed for the demographic and geographical division of the region and the fragmentation of its civilisational project.
While the Sykes-Picot agreement marked the beginning of planning for what became the modern nation-state structure in the Arab world, often accompanied by divisions and conflicts between those states, as well as tensions between Arab peoples and other communities in the region, such as the Kurds, the occupation state now appears to be seeking to replicate a similar project.
The difference, however, is that this new project is not being conducted secretly, as was the case with Sykes Picot. Instead, it is openly declared through statements made daily by Israeli officials, analysts and journalists.
What does Netanyahu mean when he repeatedly speaks of “reshaping the Middle East”, even before the outbreak of the war on Gaza? What do the articles and political statements published daily on this issue signify?
According to the article, these plans point towards the fragmentation of the Arab region into smaller states than currently exist, through the exploitation of minority questions, the weakness of the nation state and, at times, its inability to resist Israeli plans.
The occupation state has long shown interest in exploiting minority dynamics within the region, but this approach has become more explicit following the events of 7 October.
It has historically supported partition projects in Sudan, as well as in Libya and Yemen, following the fall of Muammar Gaddafi and Ali Abdullah Saleh.
Its ambitions became more evident after the fall of the Assad regime in Syria, with public statements from Israeli officials calling for support for Druze and Kurdish groups. The occupation army also carried out strikes in Sweida and Damascus in support of Druze groups seeking separation from the Syrian state.
With the beginning of the recent U.S.-Israeli aggression against Iran, discussions about “reshaping the Middle East” intensified further.
Efforts reportedly included encouraging Kurdish leaders in Iraqi Kurdistan to deploy Kurdish forces linked to Iranian Kurdish factions to infiltrate Iran and launch a war against the state.
Those advocating Kurdish involvement in a ground war against Iran are fully aware of the possible consequences. According to the article, such developments could lead to the fragmentation of Iran itself.
If the central state weakens, Kurdish uprisings could encourage other national groups within Iran, including Persians, Azeris, Arabs and Baloch, to form their own entities for self protection.
If such a plan succeeds amid the massive air strikes currently targeting Iran, the region could face a new geopolitical reality resembling a renewed Sykes Picot arrangement that divides already fragmented states even further.
If Iranian Kurds were to obtain an autonomous region, this could encourage the Kurdistan Region in Iraq to pursue full independence from Baghdad. It could also inspire Kurdish movements in Syria and Turkey, and possibly other ethnic or sectarian minorities across the region, to pursue similar paths of separation.
In an article published two days ago by the Zionist writer Meir Suissa in Yedioth Ahronoth, the author openly called for the formulation of a new Sykes Picot arrangement. He argued that the weakening of Iran’s military power allows observers to witness, in real time, the formation of a new Middle East.
The author also relied on orientalist interpretations portraying the peoples of the region as divided tribes, ethnic groups and clans. According to his argument, such divisions would lead to the fragmentation of existing states into smaller entities distributed among these groups and minorities.
He added that “amid this chaos, there is one group that possesses an advantage no one else has in the region: the Kurds, who have a cohesive national narrative, contiguous territory and iron determination. They are the only actors in the emerging Middle East who do not rely on extremist religious ideology or arbitrary colonial borders. They may be the ones capable of achieving the real breakthrough in changing regimes in Iran and Syria”.
Despite the orientalist and racial assumptions in such views, they reflect what the article describes as the ambitions of the occupation state to engineer a new geopolitical project in the region resembling a modern Sykes Picot, one that divides Arab states into tribal and sectarian entities predating the modern state.
However, presenting these ideas circulating among many Israeli politicians and analysts does not necessarily mean they will succeed.
The region has been confronting colonial projects for more than a century and a half, and this struggle will continue as long as Western and Zionist colonial ambitions persist.
The outcome of this struggle, however, will depend on the awareness of the peoples and states of the region that they are all targeted by the same colonial projects, supported by religious narratives used to justify destruction and killing under the banner of civilisational and humanitarian slogans.
The bombing of Iran, the article concludes, ultimately targets the entire region.
This platform runs on funding from the Ummah & Our Community.
