Recent developments vividly illustrate how civilizational narratives-shaped in part by thinkers associated with certain neoconservative “New York intellectuals,” some of whom are prominent Jewish figures, as well as Samuel Huntington-continue to influence contemporary geopolitical discourse. Over the Easter weekend, US President Donald Trump issued a series of social media posts directed at Iran, warning that “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day” if Tehran failed to comply with US demands.
At the same time, fringe religious rhetoric further amplified this framing: a Christian pastor, in a widely circulated and controversial statement, claimed that Trump had been sent by God to kill Iranians. Whether marginal or not, such statements underscore a broader discursive environment in which geopolitical conflicts are increasingly interpreted and justified through religious and civilizational lenses, rather than through the principles of sovereign state relations.
The launch of the so-called Abraham Accords by the United States reflects the adoption and practice of a civilizational approach to regional relations in the Middle East, seeking to recast diplomatic relations in religious terms and potentially shifting emphasis away from international law and nation-state sovereignty toward religiously framed political alignments that conflate nations with religions
In the Middle East, conflict parties have actively promoted civilizational narratives to frame occupation, resistance, and warfare since the end of the Cold War. Netanyahu’s long-standing divide-and-rule strategy, aimed at preventing the emergence of a unified Palestinian state, combined with Hamas’s (Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyah, or Islamic Resistance Movement) explicit use of Islamic symbolism in the Palestinian national independence movement, has contributed to the construction of a simplified “clash of civilisations” framework.
During the Gaza war, Netanyahu’s references to violent biblical passages in contemporary discourse highlight the strategic use of civilizational language in Israel’s approach. The launch of the so-called Abraham Accords by the United States reflects the adoption and practice of a civilizational approach to regional relations in the Middle East, seeking to recast diplomatic relations in religious terms and potentially shifting emphasis away from international law and nation-state sovereignty toward religiously framed political alignments that conflate nations with religions. More recently, the White House has echoed and further elaborated this civilizational narrative from a U.S. perspective to justify military action and intervention.
Why the civilizational narrative
These historically and religiously framed narratives and initiatives can be interpreted as efforts to reshape or even replace existing international law with religious justifications for practices such as occupation, settlement expansion, targeted killings, military strikes, and territorial incursions. Under prevailing interpretations of international law and the nation-state-based international system, many of these actions have been subject to legal scrutiny and have prompted calls for international accountability. In this context, religious, civilizational, and historical framing serve to construct an alternative framework that circumvents or bypasses constraints on unlawful state behaviour.
The Middle East, home to the Abrahamic traditions, has been particularly affected by civilizational narratives in the post-“End of History” era, whether actively or passively. From Israel’s use of religion to justify occupation to Hamas’s adoption of Islamic symbolism for resistance, all parties have drawn on religious frameworks to legitimise their political and military actions. During Trump’s first term, a broader framework for international relations-embodied in the so-called Abraham Accords-was promoted among the “Jewish” state (Israel), “Muslim” countries (in the Middle East and beyond), and “Christian” countries (in the West).
Other major powers and their policy advisers are not immune to the appeal of civilizational discourse. Russia, under Vladimir Putin, presents itself as the guardian of Orthodox civilisation. India, under Narendra Modi, emphasises the construction of a Hindu civilizational state. Turkey, under Recep Tayyip Erdo?an, frequently invokes the legacy of the Ottoman Empire. China, under Xi Jinping, frames national rejuvenation as the realisation of the “Chinese Dream.”
Civilizational Proxies?
The end of the Cold War (“the End of History”) and the rise of civilizational conflict narratives (“the Clash of Civilizations”) in the Middle East suggest a transformation of earlier alliance patterns into civilizational proxy relationships. Intellectual figures, such as Norman Podhoretz and Bernard Lewis, have advocated confrontational frameworks between the Muslim world and the West, contributing to a form of Judeo-Christian proxy alignment. Iran, to a lesser extent, has developed a Shia-oriented proxy network since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, projecting its influence through ideological and geopolitical engagement across the region. Saudi Arabia, through the promotion of Wahhabism, has extended its proxy networks from the Middle East to South Asia and beyond. Likewise, smaller but wealthy Gulf states have also cultivated proxy networks beyond their own borders.
These proxy practices have significantly undermined the sovereignty of states both within the region and beyond, leaving the Middle East increasingly characterised by pervasive proxy dynamics and weakened state authority. Extending beyond national borders, such practices have further destabilised already fragile and volatile nation-state systems by creating spheres of influence in Yemen, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, and other countries through proxy militias.
All these proxy practices have backfired on multiple fronts: Wahhabism has seriously damaged Saudi Arabia’s image, reaching a peak in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks; the (Shia) Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its proxy networks have drawn Iran into severe economic difficulties and diplomatic isolation; and even Israel and its proxy, the US, have faced significant retaliation from Iran. Both the proxies and their sponsors have suffered substantial economic losses, damage to their political and diplomatic reputations, and even instances of military setbacks. To build lasting peace in the Middle East, all forms of proxy practices must be curtailed to sustain the region’s fragile nation-states. It is time for all these states to act in accordance with the principles of nation-state sovereignty and the international legal order grounded in them, rather than through civilizational proxy frameworks.
Strengthening a nation-state-centered regional and global order
Ending proxy networks requires strengthening the sovereignty of nation-states and reinforcing nation-state-based regional organisations. All Middle Eastern states should enhance their sovereignty, including by developing national defence capacities, while also respecting and supporting the sovereignty of other states, including through the pursuit of a two-state solution. Alongside the reassertion and strengthening of nation-state sovereignty in the Middle East, regional countries should reconsider post-World War II civilizational institutions based on language or religion, such as the League of Arab States and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, which have become increasingly ineffective, largely because their agendas are often disconnected from the concrete concerns of national sovereignty. Instead, the regional countries should expand cooperation toward a nation-state-based regional organisation largely defined by geography-a trend evident in Europe (EU), Africa (AU), Southeast Asia (ASEAN), Central Asia (OTS), and the Americas (OAS). In contrast, East Asia, Eastern Europe and the Balkans, and the Middle East have yet to establish comparable regional organisations, where tensions and conflicts continue to rise.
To sustain a sovereign, nation-state-based international order and legal framework, Middle Eastern countries-as well as others-should reject civilizational approaches to regional or international relations, including frameworks such as the Abraham Accords, which may undermine the authority of the United Nations and its resolutions and, ultimately, erode the sovereignty of smaller states in the region. Instead, strengthening sovereign nation-states and reforming their international representative body, the United Nations, together with the development of emerging regional organisations, remains the most viable path to protecting the fragile international order today.
The writer is Assistant Professor at Frostburg State University.