PNN – During the years and decades after the establishment of the occupied Jerusalem regime, the discourse of compromise has had various examples: from the Oslo Peace Treaty to the Annapolis Conference and the agreement on the normalization of relations between the Arabs and the occupied Jerusalem regime.
In addition to field and security effects, the occurrence of the proud operation of Al-Aqsa Storm has generated great relations and discourse effects in the region, the most important of which is the destruction of the compromise system with the Zionist enemy and its accessories, including the Ibrahim Pact and the two-state plan. During the years and decades after the establishment of the occupied Jerusalem regime, the discourse of compromise has had various examples: from the Oslo Peace Treaty to the Annapolis Conference and the agreement on the normalization of relations between the Arabs and the occupied Jerusalem regime.
These disgraceful agreements are designed and regulated under the doctrine and macro vision of the American governments towards the West Asian region and basically have no relation to real peace in the region. Here we refer to some of the frameworks and metatexts under which the bio-discourse of compromise took place. The official failure of America in Afghanistan and Iraq was the revealing point of the failure of the “Greater Middle East” plan. In troubled Iraq and Afghanistan, neither “liberal democracy” nor “powerful America” ​​emerged. Even Obama’s presence in the White House could not free America from this vortex. It got to the point where the Obama administration itself accepted “multilateralism” as a “bitter truth” in the field of American foreign policy, but at the same time, Obama tried to play a dangerous game by creating takfiri terrorism, especially the ISIS group. The change of the regional order of West Asia and subsequently, the change of the world order.
Read more:
Gaza war is the end of Netanyahu’s political life/ Western support for genocide in Palestine
With the presence of Trump at the top of the executive equations of America, he spoke of “returning to a powerful America”. In order to restore the lost and irreversible hegemony of America, he took every action: from unilateralism in NATO to disrupting the rules of the World Trade Organization. He pulled out of all multilateral agreements to make America “powerful” and “unique,” as he put it. On the other hand, Trump brought Washington’s support to ISIS and other Takfiri terrorist groups to its peak in order to compensate for the failure and desperation of the Obama administration’s strategists against the resistance front and the resistance fighters reproduced the power equations in the region in absolute contradiction to the “compromise discourse”.
Joe Biden came to power while the danger of civil war threatened America more than ever due to the social-political divides created during the Trump era. In the meantime, the new American president is thinking about failed or doomed doctrines that he tried to base his game on before the recent developments in the international system. But here is a big rule that binds Biden and other White House officials more than ever: That America is not in a position to create a kind of balance between “its own action” and “the reaction of others” and make this balance the basis of its view and action in the international system. On the other hand, the choice of “interventionist” doctrines such as Nixon-Kissinger’s doctrine or friendship plan or Eisenhower’s doctrine of limited intervention cannot become the basis of the American government’s performance in today’s world.
In a situation where the US has lost even the ability to research the future and predict future developments in the region and its absolute support for the occupying Quds regime has become Washington’s security, regional and international achille’s heel, talking about the discourse that gave birth to the Western interventionist doctrines in the region is, it is considered superficial and pointless. Al-Aqsa typhoon operation has played a very important role in avoiding the gray strata of the region towards the discourse of compromise and its components. Now the American and European strategists are unanimous that the duality created between the discourse of resistance and occupation is stronger than ever and it will not even be possible to reproduce the discourse of compromise based on new patterns.