With the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, claims that the borders in the Middle East would change have once again come to the forefront. Similar assertions were frequently made following the U.S. operation in Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Today, these discussions have gained even more traction, particularly attributed to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The basis of these claims lies in the fact that many of the borders in the Middle East were artificially drawn by the British and the French about a century ago, and most of today’s states did not exist before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
If we leave history to historians and focus on the present, it is theoretically possible for borders in the region to change, but this is not as easy as it seems. Any alteration in borders would automatically impact all regional balances, and even those advocating for such changes could suffer significant losses as a result.
It is also unclear exactly what Netanyahu means by his statements about border changes. However, his rhetoric largely appears to be related to the territories Israel wants to occupy in Gaza, Syria, and Lebanon. As is well known, Israel currently has de facto control over certain areas in all three regions and, emboldened by Trump’s support, aims to make this occupation permanent.
The Netanyahu administration does not hide its aspiration for Syria to be effectively divided into four parts—a scenario that already seems to be unfolding: in the northeast, the Kurds; in the west, along the Mediterranean coast, the Alawites; in the south, near the Israeli border, the Druze hold the majority. The Kurds and Druze have their own militia forces, while the Alawites, due to their ties with the Assad regime, fear that forming such a force would bring them into direct conflict with Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).
Israel is also perhaps the only country in the region openly supporting an independent Kurdish state. It expressed this stance clearly in 2017 when Iraqi Kurdistan held an independence referendum, but the Kurds faced a severe backlash and had to backtrack. Even the U.S., which is often thought to support Kurdish independence, warned them against taking this step. There are strong indications that the U.S. may similarly abandon the Kurds in Syria.
As a result, apart from Israel, there is virtually no other country in the region advocating for border changes. Given such a geopolitical landscape, it seems unlikely that Netanyahu could drag the U.S. into a regional adventure by aligning with Trump.
Moreover, implementing radical and unrealistic policies such as the depopulation of Gaza is not feasible. The idea of resettling Palestinians in Jordan and Egypt, as proposed by Trump, also seems impossible in practice. Such an attempt could trigger regime changes in both countries, which would pose a significant threat to Israel itself. A scenario that expands the conflict and destabilizes Jordan and Egypt would only make Israel’s regional existence even more difficult.
