The vision was audacious: a region reshaped by force, its borders redrawn, its enemies humbled. Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, two men who saw themselves as history's architects, set out to remake the Middle East through a series of unilateral moves. The Abraham Accords, the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the assassination of top Iranian generals — all part of a grand strategy to impose a new order. But today, that vision lies in tatters. What we are witnessing is not a new order but a permacrisis, a state of perpetual instability that threatens to engulf the entire region.
The problem with any attempt to rewrite geopolitics by brute force is that it ignores the fundamental laws of systems: every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Removing a leader, as in Syria or Iraq, does not bring stability; it creates a power vacuum that draws in more extremist elements. The same is true for the Trump-Netanyahu approach. By dismantling the Iran nuclear deal and tightening the screws on Tehran, they hoped to force a collapse of the regime. Instead, Iran accelerated its nuclear programme, enriched uranium beyond weapons-grade thresholds, and deepened its ties with Russia. The 'maximum pressure' campaign has left the region with a nuclear-armed Iran in waiting, a scenario far more dangerous than the one they inherited.
Then there is the Palestinian question. The peace process was declared dead, embassies were moved, and the West Bank was effectively annexed through settlement expansion. The assumption was that the Palestinian cause would wither away, abandoned by Arab states eager for normalisation with Israel. But that assumption ignored the human reality of millions living under occupation. The permacrisis we see now — the spike in violence in Gaza, the growing isolation of Israel in the international community, the resurgence of militant groups — is the direct result of that neglect. You cannot build a stable system on a foundation of injustice. The user experience of society for Palestinians has been one of hopelessness, and that is a recipe for endless conflict.
On the technology front, we see the same hubris. The use of AI in surveillance and targeted killings, promoted as a way to reduce collateral damage, has actually created a new level of algorithmic warfare. But algorithms lack context. They cannot distinguish between a fighter and a civilian in a complex environment. The result is a higher body count and a cycle of revenge that feeds the crisis. The black mirror of the future is already here: drones powered by AI making life-and-death decisions in real time, without human accountability.
Netanyahu and Trump promised a clean break from the past, a clean slate. But in complex systems, there are no clean breaks. Every action leaves a residue. The Abraham Accords were supposed to herald a new era of peace, but they have frozen the conflict, not resolved it. The region is now more polarised than ever, with proxy wars in Syria, Yemen, and Libya raging on. The permacrisis is not a temporary setback; it is the new normal.
The irony is that both leaders now face their own existential threats. Trump is fighting legal battles at home, while Netanyahu's coalition is fracturing. Each is a political survivor, but the systems they built are brittle. The middle east makeover they envisioned has given way to a landscape of perpetual crisis, where no one is in control. The user experience of the region is one of constant alert, a society living on the edge.
What is needed now is a radical shift in perspective. Instead of trying to impose order from above, we must recognise the resilience of local systems. Technology can help, but only if it is used to amplify human dialogue, not replace it. Quantum computing might one day model conflict resolution, but no algorithm can replace the messy work of diplomacy. The permacrisis will only end when we stop trying to rewrite the rules and start listening to the people who live by them.
For now, the middle east remains a laboratory for the dangers of top-down transformation. It is a warning to any leader who believes they can reshape the world with a swipe of the pen or a drone strike. The future belongs to those who understand complexity, not those who try to crush it.
