The B-2 Gamble: How Israel is Rewriting Middle East Power Politics
What distinguishes this moment is not that the United States is grooming a proxy to police the region — Washington did so in the 1950s with the Shah of Iran after the ousting of nationalist leader Mohammad Mosaddegh. The difference now is that this is not a US design imposed on Israel — it is Israel's own blueprint, carried out with Washington's endorsement.
The evidence is no longer subtle. Just weeks ago, Admiral James Kilby, acting US Chief of Naval Operations, told Congress that America's military operations in the Arabian Sea were rapidly depleting its arsenal at an unsustainable rate. Over a billion dollars' worth of missiles had been launched against Houthi rebels, with three Super Hornet jets lost in three months — one due to friendly fire. Kilby's message was calculated and unambiguous: while US interests in the Gulf and Middle East remain vital, the costs have become prohibitive. Perhaps it is time for a regional actor to shoulder that burden.
That actor is, unmistakably, Israel. US lawmakers are already moving in that direction. Following recent American strikes on Iranian assets, Congress proposed new legislation granting President Donald Trump authority to transfer advanced strategic weaponry to Tel Aviv — including the formidable B-2 stealth bomber and GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs, capable of destroying targets buried sixty metres underground. This is not routine arms support. It is about enabling Israel with autonomous deterrent capabilities, easing Washington's political load regardless of who sits in the Oval Office.
The so-called 'Bunker Buster Act,' backed by Democratic Congressman Josh Gottheimer and Republican Mike Lawler, seeks to give the president sweeping powers to ensure Israel's readiness for any scenario should Iran advance its nuclear programme. If enacted, it would transform the Middle East's military landscape. For Israel, the implications would be historic. Acquiring B-2 strategic bombers would allow Tel Aviv to enforce its long-held doctrine of 'open skies' — ensuring uncontested air dominance from Lebanon to Iran via Syria and Iraq. This would not only disrupt supply lines to Hezbollah and Hamas but would also grant Israel a definitive military veto over any regional force aspiring to strategic parity.
Trump and Netanyahu are perfectly aligned in this vision. Their recent summit — the third in just six months — marked a turning point in US-Israeli relations. Trump saw in Israel's role during the strikes on Iranian assets confirmation of Tel Aviv's enduring strategic value. Notably, no global power — not even China or Russia — condemned the attacks. This silence was telling, reinforcing deterrence and giving Trump a window to advance a Middle East order grounded in preemption and militarised regional policing.
At the core of the Trump-Netanyahu dialogue was a pragmatic and unapologetic vision for the region: to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions through a binding deal that curbs its regional influence; to stabilise Syria under pro-Western — or at least anti-Iranian — leadership; to integrate defence systems and economic corridors under an expanded Abraham Accords framework; to marginalise Chinese influence through deeper military ties with Gulf states; and to preserve Israel's absolute military and technological edge.
For Israel, the immediate challenge is not competing with Gulf states for investments or high-level visits. Its real dilemma lies in defining its role within this emerging order while avoiding premature confrontations. Historically, Israel has operated as Washington's indispensable regional asset, equipped with one of the world's most advanced military machines, backed by extensive Western intelligence networks. In contrast, even the wealthiest Gulf states — led by Saudi Arabia — remain militarily vulnerable, a condition unlikely to change despite multi-billion-dollar arms purchases.
Within this emerging structure, Israel is positioned to become the frontline executor of US interests — at least until tensions ease and Iran's nuclear file is closed. To solidify this role, Israel must progress along three tracks: maintaining its independent military superiority, now bolstered by the proposed B-2 transfer; pursuing pragmatic relations with regional powers like Turkey to prevent destabilising flare-ups; and embedding itself within new regional economic frameworks by leveraging its unmatched technological base.
Yet none of this is inevitable. History consistently reminds us that no geopolitical vision, however heavily armed, is immune to resistance. The region's future will hinge on whether its nations possess the resolve, strategic cohesion, and unity to challenge this vision — before Israel secures uncontested authority over the Middle East's airspace, politics, and resources. The clock, however, is ticking.
Dr. Hatem Sadek, Professor at Helwan University
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily News Egypt
10 hours ago
- Daily News Egypt
From Harvard to Berkeley: The Federal War on American Universities
The past year has laid bare a growing and dangerous campaign against American universities — one that threatens to undermine academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and the right to dissent. What began with pro-Palestinian demonstrations in late 2023 has escalated into a calculated effort by the Trump administration to police campus discourse, punish ideological nonconformity, and suppress political protest. Behind the rhetoric of combating antisemitism lies a far more ambitious project: transforming America's independent centres of scholarship into compliant instruments of state power. The first major flashpoint came at Harvard, where over thirty student groups issued a statement in October 2023 holding Israel responsible for escalating violence in Gaza. The backlash was swift. Prominent donors, conservative commentators, and federal officials demanded punitive action. Though Harvard's administration initially distanced itself from the protests, its response was neither swift nor severe enough to appease critics. By early 2024, the Trump administration had frozen $2.3bn in federal research grants to Harvard, accusing the university of tolerating antisemitic expression — despite the absence of formal findings to that effect. The message was unmistakable: universities that fail to suppress pro-Palestinian activism will face financial ruin. This retaliation set a precedent. At Yale University, a student group protesting an Israeli official's lecture in late 2024 was branded antisemitic, prompting the university to revoke the group's recognition and sparking campus unrest. Yet even that concession was not enough to prevent federal reprisal. In April 2025, the administration threatened Yale's accreditation, signalling that institutions would now be punished not only for what they say, but for what they allow others to say. The University of California, Berkeley faced its own reckoning in May 2025, when it rejected federal demands to monitor international students' social media accounts for alleged 'anti-American' or 'antisemitic' content. The response was immediate: Berkeley lost $100m in federal research funding. A faculty-led strike followed, with professors warning that such intrusions violated the most basic principles of academic freedom and would devastate American research. Berkeley's defiance made clear that this was not an isolated clash over campus culture, but part of a systematic campaign to bring universities to heel. The consequences are dire. Harvard's Alan Garber noted that the frozen grants threaten vital research on gene editing and GLP-1 drugs — work central to treating genetic disorders and obesity. Steven Pinker warned that the US risks ceding its scientific leadership to nations like China, where research may face ideological limits but not this kind of self-inflicted sabotage. This campaign is not only about silencing dissent; it is about disabling the innovation that has long defined American higher education. Equally alarming is the erosion of academic freedom. Through ideological audits, pressure to dismantle DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives, and threats to accreditation, the administration has created an environment in which both faculty and students are discouraged from engaging with politically sensitive topics. The chilling effect is unmistakable. Universities that once prided themselves on fearless inquiry now weigh the cost of financial or political backlash for permitting protest or controversial scholarship. This climate of coercion has fuelled unrest across already polarised campuses. Yale's suppression of student groups and Columbia's heightened policing of protests have sparked further demonstrations. The risk of a nationwide student movement, reminiscent of the Vietnam War era, grows. Yet unlike past waves of protest, today's confrontations stem not from universities defying authority, but from institutions struggling to survive under relentless external attack. Perhaps most insidious is the threat to institutional autonomy. By wielding funding freezes, accreditation threats, and tax status reviews, the administration bypasses due process and replaces independent governance with political fiat. It transforms universities from self-governing scholarly communities into state-dependent contractors — a tactic common in authoritarian regimes, but newly and openly deployed in the American context. The damage also reverberates globally. Visa restrictions and demands for surveillance of international students have already deterred global talent, undermining the diversity and international collaboration that fuel scientific and cultural progress. If the US ceases to be a destination for the world's brightest minds, it will forfeit the intellectual prestige it has long enjoyed. Though comparisons to Hungary's Viktor Orbán or China's Xi Jinping are often made, the Trump administration's tactics are more brazen. Freezing billions in funding without legislative oversight and demanding student surveillance are not the slow, bureaucratic tools of autocracies — they are ideological purges executed with speed and force, bypassing both law and tradition. To be clear, universities must protect all students and ensure civil, inclusive discourse. Antisemitism must be confronted wherever it exists. But using that imperative to justify the suppression of political protest is dishonest and deeply damaging. Harvard's legal challenge to its funding freeze — backed by a coalition of 400 college presidents — is a crucial first step. Yet only sustained resistance by faculty, students, alumni, and the broader public can defend higher education's essential role in a free society. The Trump administration's vendetta against American universities, sparked by pro-Palestinian protests, threatens to dismantle the very principles that have made US higher education a global model. The assault on dissent, the coercion of scholars, and the policing of speech must be recognised for what they are: an attack not only on universities, but on democracy itself. The survival of both now rests on whether those under siege choose silence — or resistance. Dr. Marwa El-Shinawy – Academic and Writer
Daily News Egypt
10 hours ago
- Daily News Egypt
The B-2 Gamble: How Israel is Rewriting Middle East Power Politics
The Middle East has long been a region where contradictions fuel conflict. It is a place where terrorism morphs into political authority with both regional and international consent. It is a battlefield for nuclear brinkmanship, where occupying powers and others pursue dangerous ambitions for weapons they may never dare to use. It holds nearly 40% of the world's energy reserves, while wealthy nations depend on superpower protection to ensure their survival. This volatile mix provides endless justification for intervention, for redrawing borders, and for reinventing regional power structures under shifting global agendas. The latest chapter of this evolving story began on October 7, 2023, and has intensified with the twelve-day war between Israel and Iran. At the centre of this accelerating transformation stands a blunt truth: Israel is being prepared not merely as a stakeholder, but as the region's official security enforcer and power broker. What distinguishes this moment is not that the United States is grooming a proxy to police the region — Washington did so in the 1950s with the Shah of Iran after the ousting of nationalist leader Mohammad Mosaddegh. The difference now is that this is not a US design imposed on Israel — it is Israel's own blueprint, carried out with Washington's endorsement. The evidence is no longer subtle. Just weeks ago, Admiral James Kilby, acting US Chief of Naval Operations, told Congress that America's military operations in the Arabian Sea were rapidly depleting its arsenal at an unsustainable rate. Over a billion dollars' worth of missiles had been launched against Houthi rebels, with three Super Hornet jets lost in three months — one due to friendly fire. Kilby's message was calculated and unambiguous: while US interests in the Gulf and Middle East remain vital, the costs have become prohibitive. Perhaps it is time for a regional actor to shoulder that burden. That actor is, unmistakably, Israel. US lawmakers are already moving in that direction. Following recent American strikes on Iranian assets, Congress proposed new legislation granting President Donald Trump authority to transfer advanced strategic weaponry to Tel Aviv — including the formidable B-2 stealth bomber and GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs, capable of destroying targets buried sixty metres underground. This is not routine arms support. It is about enabling Israel with autonomous deterrent capabilities, easing Washington's political load regardless of who sits in the Oval Office. The so-called 'Bunker Buster Act,' backed by Democratic Congressman Josh Gottheimer and Republican Mike Lawler, seeks to give the president sweeping powers to ensure Israel's readiness for any scenario should Iran advance its nuclear programme. If enacted, it would transform the Middle East's military landscape. For Israel, the implications would be historic. Acquiring B-2 strategic bombers would allow Tel Aviv to enforce its long-held doctrine of 'open skies' — ensuring uncontested air dominance from Lebanon to Iran via Syria and Iraq. This would not only disrupt supply lines to Hezbollah and Hamas but would also grant Israel a definitive military veto over any regional force aspiring to strategic parity. Trump and Netanyahu are perfectly aligned in this vision. Their recent summit — the third in just six months — marked a turning point in US-Israeli relations. Trump saw in Israel's role during the strikes on Iranian assets confirmation of Tel Aviv's enduring strategic value. Notably, no global power — not even China or Russia — condemned the attacks. This silence was telling, reinforcing deterrence and giving Trump a window to advance a Middle East order grounded in preemption and militarised regional policing. At the core of the Trump-Netanyahu dialogue was a pragmatic and unapologetic vision for the region: to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions through a binding deal that curbs its regional influence; to stabilise Syria under pro-Western — or at least anti-Iranian — leadership; to integrate defence systems and economic corridors under an expanded Abraham Accords framework; to marginalise Chinese influence through deeper military ties with Gulf states; and to preserve Israel's absolute military and technological edge. For Israel, the immediate challenge is not competing with Gulf states for investments or high-level visits. Its real dilemma lies in defining its role within this emerging order while avoiding premature confrontations. Historically, Israel has operated as Washington's indispensable regional asset, equipped with one of the world's most advanced military machines, backed by extensive Western intelligence networks. In contrast, even the wealthiest Gulf states — led by Saudi Arabia — remain militarily vulnerable, a condition unlikely to change despite multi-billion-dollar arms purchases. Within this emerging structure, Israel is positioned to become the frontline executor of US interests — at least until tensions ease and Iran's nuclear file is closed. To solidify this role, Israel must progress along three tracks: maintaining its independent military superiority, now bolstered by the proposed B-2 transfer; pursuing pragmatic relations with regional powers like Turkey to prevent destabilising flare-ups; and embedding itself within new regional economic frameworks by leveraging its unmatched technological base. Yet none of this is inevitable. History consistently reminds us that no geopolitical vision, however heavily armed, is immune to resistance. The region's future will hinge on whether its nations possess the resolve, strategic cohesion, and unity to challenge this vision — before Israel secures uncontested authority over the Middle East's airspace, politics, and resources. The clock, however, is ticking. Dr. Hatem Sadek, Professor at Helwan University
Egypt Independent
18 hours ago
- Egypt Independent
Trump says he'll send new weapons to Ukraine
CNN — President Donald Trump said Monday he plans to send additional defensive weapons to Ukraine after his administration President Donald Trump said Monday he plans to send additional defensive weapons to Ukraine after his administration paused certain shipments last week. 'We're going to send some more weapons. We have to – they have to be able to defend themselves,' Trump said ahead of a dinner with his Israeli counterpart, Benjamin Netanyahu. 'They're getting hit very hard. We're going to have to send more weapons,' Trump added. 'Defensive weapons, primarily, but they're getting hit very, very hard.' The president's latest remarks come after a senior White House official told CNN last week the Trump administration was pausing some weapons shipments to Ukraine, including air defense missiles. The decision came after a review of military spending and American support to foreign countries that was signed off by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly said at the time that the decision was made 'to put America's interests first.' Some US officials insinuated the review of aid to Ukraine was related in part to the Pentagon's push to focus on China and be prepared for potential future conflict in the Pacific – an issue prioritized by the Pentagon's policy chief, Elbridge Colby. 'The Department of Defense continues to provide the President with robust options to continue military aid to Ukraine, consistent with his goal of bringing this tragic war to an end. At the same time, the Department is rigorously examining and adapting its approach to achieving this objective while also preserving US forces' readiness for Administration defense priorities,' Colby said in a statement at the time of the pause. Russia welcomed the halt in certain shipments to Ukraine, claiming – without providing any evidence – it was made because the US did not have enough weapons. 'At President Trump's direction, the Department of Defense will send additional defensive weapons to Ukraine to ensure the Ukrainians can defend themselves while we work to secure a lasting peace,' chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement Monday. 'Our framework for POTUS to evaluate military shipments across the globe remains in effect and is integral to our America First defense priorities.' The US has been the biggest single donor of military aid to Ukraine since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in 2022, supplying Ukraine with air defense systems, drones, rocket launchers, radars, tanks and anti-armor weapons, leading to concerns over dwindling US stockpiles. Trump previously halted all shipments of military aid to Ukraine in March following a heated Oval Office argument with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump resumed aid flows to Ukraine about a week later. The decision to send additional weapons also comes after Trump spoke separately last week with both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Zelensky. He said afterward his talk with Putin was disappointing and there was 'no progress' towards a ceasefire. Meanwhile, Zelensky in recent weeks has been pleading with Western allies to bolster his nation's aerial defenses after intensifying Russian airborne attacks. Russia launched a record number of drones at Ukraine overnight on Friday, just hours after the Trump-Putin phone call. Trump later Friday said the US was considering Ukraine's request for more Patriot defense systems after a 'very good' phone call with Zelensky. The Ukrainian president said on Saturday that latest conversation with Trump was the best and 'most productive' he has had. Trump on Monday reaffirmed his displeasure with the Russian leader, saying: 'I'm not happy with President Putin at all.' This story has been updated with additional information. CNN's Kaanita Iyer contributed to this report.
