And Who Is Managing the Scarecrow?

Who gets security?
Who gets peace?
Who gains influence?
Who gains the rewards?
And who bears the cost?

Prepared, Analyzed & Interpreted by | Strategic Media Department – BETH Agency
Supervised by: Abdullah Al-Omairah

The current scene in the Middle East is far more than a confrontation with Iran, negotiations over the Strait of Hormuz, or renewed Houthi threats against the Gulf states.

The picture is much broader.

There is a substantial American military presence across the region.

A war whose files remain open.

Negotiations driven by pressure, delay, and bargaining.

An increasingly assertive Iranian voice.

Renewed Houthi threats.

An American silence that carries its own meaning.

And repeated talk of a "New Middle East" and lasting peace with Israel.

Yet the deeper question is not:

What does Washington want from the Middle East?

Rather:

Does Washington believe the region will accept a new Middle East designed solely through an American strategic vision?

President Donald Trump speaks of peace and a new regional order.

But the Middle East is not an empty geopolitical space.

Israel still operates through a traditional security doctrine that views stability primarily through military strength.

The Arab world is far from unified.

Iran has no intention of leaving the regional equation without securing a price.

And its allies in Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen continue to function as instruments of strategic pressure, even when they appear to act independently.

The Houthis' renewed threats against Gulf states, coinciding with Iran's escalating rhetoric over the Strait of Hormuz, are not a marginal development.

According to media reports, the Houthis threatened to target Saudi airports and strategic facilities after accusing the Kingdom of preventing an Iranian aircraft from landing in Sana'a.

Here, the key question becomes:

Is the rise in Houthi rhetoric synchronized only with Tehran's escalation? Or does it also, indirectly, serve the broader American logic of reshaping the region?

There is no evidence to conclude that the Houthis are acting under American direction.

However, it can be argued that the Iranian aircraft incident, together with the rise in Houthi rhetoric at this particular moment, contributes to a specific political environment—one that sends a message to the Gulf states that the threat has not disappeared, that regional security remains fragile, and that no vision of a "New Middle East" can succeed without broader security arrangements, credible deterrence, and stronger regional guarantees.

At this point, armed proxies become something more than military actors.

They become political scarecrows.

They are not imaginary.

Nor are they fictional threats.

Yet they can be used to accelerate regional realignments, narrow strategic choices, and convince capitals that the alternative to the American-led order is instability.

Iran and its regional proxies are therefore not mere symbolic figures.

They possess the ability to disrupt, impose costs, threaten maritime routes, and exhaust their opponents.

The Strait of Hormuz has once again demonstrated its strategic importance, as recent negotiations have centered on freedom of navigation, maritime fees, and the future management of one of the world's most critical energy corridors.

But the real question is not simply about the capabilities of these actors.

The real question is:

Who benefits from keeping them at the center of the regional landscape?

Iran benefits by reminding everyone that it still possesses influence beyond its borders.

The Houthis benefit by returning themselves to the regional negotiating table.

Israel benefits by reinforcing its long-standing security narrative.

And Washington may also benefit by presenting the persistence of regional threats as justification for a new regional security architecture.

The scarecrow, therefore, becomes more than an instrument of intimidation.

It becomes part of the architecture of decision-making itself.

The paradox is striking.

Washington may genuinely seek a "New Middle East."

Yet it may also find itself relying once again on the traditional tools of power:

Pressure.

Deterrence.

Division.

Alignment.

Then peace... under protection.

Which leads to the central question:

Is this truly a project for a new peace?

Or is it the modern version of an old geopolitical principle: Divide and Rule?

Real peace is not built solely upon mutual fear.

Nor by gathering competing actors beneath a temporary American umbrella.

Nor by treating the peoples of the region as passive recipients of decisions made elsewhere.

Today's Middle East is not a region without memory.

It remembers occupation.

It understands proxy warfare.

It knows the cost of instability.

And it knows that any peace that fails to address the sources of fear ultimately becomes nothing more than a prolonged truce rather than lasting stability.

For that reason, any American vision for a New Middle East will remain incomplete if it overlooks a fundamental reality:

The minds of the region are not a footnote to the strategy.

They are central to its success—or its failure.

If Washington believes it can simultaneously build peace between Arabs and Israel, reduce tensions with Iran, and redesign Gulf security without understanding how the region itself thinks, it risks repeating a familiar mistake:

Managing the Middle East from above... rather than understanding it from within.

BETH Strategic Outlook

The coming days may reveal whether the rising Iranian rhetoric and the renewed activity of Iran's regional allies represent temporary negotiating pressure...

Or the beginning of a broader redistribution of regional roles.

What is certain, however, is that no New Middle East can be built upon political scarecrows alone.

If Iran continues to rely on its regional proxies as instruments of pressure...

If the Houthis continue threatening the Gulf...

If Israel continues relying primarily on military power...

And if Washington continues viewing peace as a transaction detached from history...

The result will not be lasting peace.

It will simply be...

A truce.

Real peace will begin not merely when the guns fall silent...

But when political scarecrows no longer shape the decisions of the Middle East.