Who Has the Power
The Middle East’s strategic center of gravity has shifted toward overt and covert alignment between Israel and several Arab states, driven in large part by the need to contain Iran as the principal regional threat. The arrangement is being shaped largely under US strategic guidance, while the Palestinian question is increasingly pushed into the language of diplomacy rather than the center of policy. The people living under these decisions are not the ones setting them.
Recent US-Israeli action against Iranian assets, along with Iranian retaliatory strikes against Israel and Gulf states, has likely strengthened this emerging alignment. Its future, the article says, will depend on the course of US-Iran diplomacy, Iran’s internal political trajectory, and the prospects for expanding the Abraham Accords, especially to include Saudi Arabia.
The region is also moving from a traditional hydrocarbon-based economy toward a new model centered on advanced technology, artificial intelligence, nuclear energy, and defense innovation. That shift is not just economic jargon; it is a reordering of power. The historic influence of Egypt, Syria, and Iraq has declined, and the vacuum has been filled by the rise of Gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar, alongside Israel.
Who Gets Left Behind
Three factors explain this transformation, according to the article. First, Israel and the Gulf states have achieved significant economic prosperity, with some now having higher per capita GDP than Japan, while other regional actors continue to face economic fragility or state failure. Second, the gradual reduction of the US security footprint in the Middle East has pushed regional actors to reconsider local security frameworks. Third, regional states increasingly prioritize sovereign governance and domestic prosperity over the old “Arab cause.”
The Palestinian issue, once the central imperative of that cause, now often functions as part of the region’s public diplomatic language while practical policy is increasingly guided by national interest. That is the polite phrase for a regional order where the old slogans remain available for public consumption, but the machinery of state power keeps moving elsewhere.
Since the Obama administration, the US has formally sought to reorient its strategic focus toward the Indo-Pacific. In practice, repeated crises have kept Washington deeply engaged in the Middle East: terrorism after September 11, the Iraq War, the Arab Spring, the Syrian civil war, the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel, and continuing tensions with Iran. Japan, the article says, understands the cost of Middle East instability and responded to past regional crises through major national commitments, including during the oil shocks, the Gulf War, and the dispatch of Self-Defense Forces to Iraq.
The New Architecture
The US vision for the region is built in part on expanding the Abraham Accords, especially to include Saudi Arabia. Normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia would carry enormous strategic significance because of Riyadh’s role as Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques. It could also create ripple effects across the broader Muslim world. Such an alignment would stabilize relations between Israel and moderate Muslim states and further constrain extremist forces, according to the article.
A Middle East order anchored by moderate Arab states and Israel would also help the US shift resources toward the Indo-Pacific. The normalization of ties between Israel and Muslim-majority Asian nations, especially Indonesia, would also carry strategic weight. Israel’s military strength, high-tech leadership, and position as a de facto US ally mean that deeper Israeli engagement in the Indo-Pacific could affect the regional balance of power.
One of the main strategic challenges in the Indo-Pacific is strengthening deterrence against China’s unilateral attempts to alter the status quo. The article says this requires broader involvement by like-minded countries that seek to maintain regional peace and stability. Integrating Israel, the Middle East’s most militarily advanced state, into this framework could strengthen deterrence.
In his 2025 address to the United Nations General Assembly, Shigeru Ishiba supported a two-state solution while also backing the expansion of the Abraham Accords. The article presents that as Japan’s strategic understanding of both the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific.
Capital, Tech, and Defense
The new economic dynamics centered on Israel and the Gulf region also create major opportunities for Japan and the Indo-Pacific, the article says. Israel’s strengths in AI, energy, and technology, combined with the Gulf’s financial power and investment capacity, create a new economic frontier. Major US technology companies, including Google, Apple, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, and Nvidia, maintain deep engagement with Israeli human capital and technological expertise. The US defense industry is also increasingly interested in Israel’s operational experience and innovation.
For Japan, deeper economic ties with Israel also mean closer connectivity with leading US corporations. The Gulf states, especially the UAE and Saudi Arabia, add another layer through their major AI investments, financial sophistication, and attractive investment climate. Israeli companies are already deepening their links with the UAE. At the same time, the UAE and Saudi Arabia are building stronger economic relations with India. Together, these trends are creating significant economic momentum across regions.
This is described as a 21st-century model of Middle East engagement. It goes far beyond the old oil-and-gas framework. It is based on technology, capital, defense innovation, infrastructure, and investment. Companies such as SoftBank are already active in this space, but Japanese enterprises can do much more to connect Indo-Pacific economic dynamism with the momentum now building between Israel and the Gulf.
Israel’s defense industry deserves particular attention, the article says. Japan must strengthen its defense capabilities, including air defense, and improve deterrence against North Korea and China. Israel’s defense industry, shaped by extensive combat experience, has recorded major export growth. It is also advancing defense cooperation with Asian countries through combat-proven systems, joint development, technology transfer, shared intellectual property, localized production, and collaborative research and development. Reports also indicate that Israeli defense products are often more cost-effective than US equivalents, while offering local production options and fewer proprietary “black box” components.
Palestine as a Side Condition
Within this reconfigured Middle East, the Palestinian issue remains significant. Saudi Arabia’s main stated condition for normalizing relations with Israel is the establishment of “a clear path to a two-state solution.” The article says this underscores the continuing importance of addressing the Palestinian question.
At the same time, the Palestinian issue no longer occupies the same central position it once held in regional politics. The rapid development of Israel and the Gulf has shifted priorities. For Gulf states, the Palestinian issue still carries domestic political resonance, but it is increasingly treated as one part of a broader national-interest agenda.
This was visible in the continued diplomatic presence of the UAE and Bahraini ambassadors in Israel even during the Gaza war. In some cases, defense cooperation with Israel to safeguard national security can take precedence over historic positions on Palestine. For Japan, the article concludes, understanding this evolving Middle East is essential. Regional stability can help free US resources for the Indo-Pacific. Israeli involvement can strengthen deterrence among like-minded Indo-Pacific nations. Israel’s high-tech and defense industries, combined with Gulf financial capacity and investment appeal, can also support Japan’s security and economic vitality. A national-interest-driven approach to the Middle East is therefore presented as the most effective strategic path for Japan.