During most of its modern history, Egypt seemed to follow a more or less similar path in its foreign policy: it would align with one major power after another and would thus gain an advantageous position in the region. During the past two centuries, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States have replaced one another in more or less the same role. Amid the “new Cold War” trend being covered lately in the international press and Sisi’s recent visit to Moscow where he signed the first arms deal with Russia since the 1960’s, many have begun speaking of a renewal of the strategic relationship between the two countries and a consequent chill between Cairo and Washington.

“It is quite common to hear high officials in Washington and elsewhere speak of c hanging the map of the Middle E as t, as if ancient societies and myriad peoples can be shaken up like so many peanuts in a jar”, says Edward Said in Orientalism. T he lates t threats for the region are –no surprise- direc ted agains t Iran and with US elec tions fas t approac hing the various candidates are busy in talking themselves into a possible US -backed Is raeli s trike. In case this psyc hological warfare leads to war, a Global Armageddon Sc enario could be in the offing.

The “Arab Spring” and the uprisings ac ross the region led to two “paradoxes” that few antic ipated at the outset. F irst, the ascent of the Saudi Kingdom as the Sunni regional hegemon and the second, the newrole of the USA as the mainstay of democ ratic change not against radical regimes, as it was the neo-conservative case, but at the expense of regional friendships and allegiances in E gypt, Tunisia and Yemen. In other words, the democ ratic wave has strengthened the regional position of the most undemoc ratic and pre-modern political and soc ial system in the Middle E ast and has enhanced the American soft power in a region where antiAmericanism was skyrocketing.

Through its long history, NATO’s strategic concept has been offic ially changed five times, 1 always trying to keep up with consecutive changes in the international environment. But, except from the offic ial changes of NAT O’s strategy, there have also been changes in its regional strategy, which reflec ts its overall one. Right after USSR’s collapse, USA’s emergence as the only superpower and the rise of global terrorism, the alliance has tried to change its traditional “unilateral” way of ac ting. Since 1 9 9 1 , NAT O has tried to establish “cooperative security arrangements in its neighbourhood”. 2 As Karl-Heinz Kamp puts it, “in the aftermath of the Cold War, the partnership concept served NAT O primarily as a political tool for maintaining order”

With the Arab Spring still unfolding in its backyard, the EU has proven incapable at playing a substantive role in the international politics. The uncoordinated policies of the EU have been widely criticized as the succession of revolts in the Middle East fertilize fears of collapse of the Schengen Agreement and “paralysis” in the implementation of European Common Foreign and Security Policy

One of this year’s most remarkable events (and probably the most remarkable) is the Arab Spring, which began in the Maghreb and, in a perfect domino effect, has so far “infected” Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Bahrain in different ways. But what has not been sufficiently analysed is what Israel thinks of these recent events in the Arab world.

Three main factors seem to affect the stance of Iran towards the wave of uprisings that have shaken the Arab world since January. The first is the ideological paradigm of the Islamic revolution while the second comprises the real strategic possibilities for Iran to exploit the situation and gain pre-eminence in the region. The last factor is the internal political situation, which has demonstrated that the regime is not immune to similar popular upheavals.

Though not in the forefront of the mass media coverage of the Middle East and often overshadowed by more spectacular but not necessarily more important players, Syria remains the key to many issues in the Middle East. The Syrian regime has survived American neo-conservative regime-change assault on the region and at the same time it plays a pivotal role in four interdependent fields of regional antagonism: Lebanon, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the regional Arab order and, last but not least, the issue of Iranian hegemony.

The drama is old; its acts change regularly while its protagonists stay the same embodied by Egypt and Iran. It is a play about regional power which has not reached its final yet as it is perpetuated by envious divas, capricious artists and dangerous stunts. Its audience epitomized by the U.S. and Israel, interferes constantly in its events and hence nurtures its maintenance. The play?s newest act deals with the recent war on Gaza and a Hizbullah cell lately discovered by Egyptian authorities, which has been accused of attempting to overthrow Mubarak?s regime.