The Middle East, which erupted nearly a year ago on October 7, 2023, with a devastating Hamas attack and Israel’s subsequent retaliation in Gaza, has once again put the region in global headlines. To many academics, foreign policy experts, and international observers, this violent episode is but the latest chapter in the decadeslong struggle commonly referred to as the “Arab-Israeli conflict.” However, as this conflict broadens, drawing in numerous new actors, it raises the question: Is the term “Arab-Israeli conflict” still accurate?

For many experts, including myself, the events of the past 11 months have prompted a reassessment of this term. The scope and scale of the participants have shifted dramatically since the conflict’s early days, and it seems increasingly clear that the “Arab-Israeli conflict” might no longer be a fitting descriptor for the multilayered, multifaceted war that is unfolding. Should we retire this term for good, especially now that non-Arab actors like Iran and the United States, as well as potential future participants like Turkey, are deeply entrenched in the conflict?

Arab-Israeli Conflict

The roots of the Arab-Israeli conflict stretch back to the early 20th century, following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1922. In what is now Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, but was then the British-controlled Palestine Mandate, disputes over land ownership between Jewish and Palestinian Arab communities sparked sporadic violence. Tensions flared as the Zionist movement sought to establish a homeland for Jews in Palestine, and Arab communities resisted these efforts, fearing displacement and loss of sovereignty.

The conflict reached a turning point in 1948 when Israel declared independence. This proclamation ignited the first Arab-Israeli War, pitting the newly established state against a coalition of Arab nations, including Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria. This interstate war between Israel and its Arab neighbors solidified the term “Arab-Israeli conflict” in media reports and diplomatic discourse.

For decades, the term remained an apt description. The conflict was largely confined to Israel and the surrounding Arab states, whose military, economic, and diplomatic activities shaped the contours of the struggle. Several more wars followed, most notably in 1956, 1967, and 1973, as unresolved territorial disputes and political tensions kept the region in a state of instability.

However, the geographic and geopolitical lines that defined the Arab-Israeli conflict have shifted significantly over the decades. The actors involved have multiplied, and the complexity of their interactions has outgrown the simplistic label of an Arab-Israeli rivalry.

A Broader Spectrum of Actors

While Arab states played a central role in the early years of the conflict, the dynamics began to change as other nations became more involved. The United States, in particular, has played an increasingly pivotal role in supporting Israel, beginning with President Harry Truman’s decision to recognize the Jewish state in 1948. By the 1960s, under President Lyndon Johnson, U.S. military and financial support for Israel intensified. The U.S. also mobilized its forces to protect Israel and its allies during the 1970 Jordan crisis, when Syrian-backed Palestinian forces threatened to topple the Jordanian monarchy.

In the decades since, U.S. involvement in the conflict has only deepened. During the 1990-91 Gulf War, the U.S. stationed air defense units in Israel to protect it from Iraqi missile attacks, marking a direct military engagement. Today, the U.S. is actively defending Israel from missile and drone attacks launched from across the Middle East, including those originating from Iran-backed forces in Yemen and Lebanon. The American military presence in the region is significant, and it has become a critical factor in maintaining Israel’s security and military superiority.

On the other side, Iran has emerged as a formidable adversary, providing military and financial support to groups that are hostile to Israel, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis in Yemen. The Iranian regime’s entanglement in the conflict has reached new heights over the past decade, with Israel and Iran engaging in a covert shadow war involving cyberattacks, assassinations, and military exchanges. The ongoing Israel-Hamas war has only intensified these hostilities, as Iran continues to back militias across the Middle East, further complicating the traditional Arab-Israeli framework.

Non-Arab Actors: Iran, Turkey, and the U.S.

The involvement of non-Arab actors like Iran raises important questions about whether the term “Arab-Israeli conflict” accurately captures the broader array of participants now involved. Iran, a Persian and Shiite-majority country, has been playing a more active role in the conflict than many Arab states in recent years. Its military support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and its provision of weapons and funds to Hamas, coupled with its own direct engagements with Israeli forces, suggest that the term “Arab” is no longer sufficient to describe the current conflict.

Furthermore, Turkey, a non-Arab, predominantly Sunni Muslim nation, has also become increasingly involved. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been a vocal critic of Israel’s military operations in Gaza, and anti-Israeli sentiment is running high in Turkey. While a direct military confrontation between Israel and Turkey remains unlikely, it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility. Experts warn that an incident, such as a clash between Turkish ships attempting to break Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza, could ignite a broader conflict between the two nations.

The ever-expanding list of participants, both state and nonstate actors, calls for a reassessment of how we conceptualize and label this conflict. Should the United States, Iran, and Turkey continue to be actively engaged, it seems inappropriate to describe this as simply an “Arab-Israeli” conflict.

Given the expanding scope of the conflict, we must reconsider whether the label “Arab-Israeli conflict” is sufficient to describe what is happening on the ground today. Alternatives such as “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” or “Gaza-Israeli war” have been suggested, but they too fall short. These terms do not account for the involvement of Iran, the United States, or the increasing likelihood of Turkish participation.

Indeed, the current phase of fighting has led to fatalities not just in Gaza or Israel but also in Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iran. The list of belligerents extends far beyond Hamas and Israel; it now includes Iran-backed militias, regional militias across the Arab Peninsula, and a broad array of Middle Eastern actors.

In my view, it is time for a new name that reflects the reality of this multifaceted war. A more fitting term would better encapsulate the range of actors involved and the global stakes at play. One suggestion, though admittedly a bit cumbersome, is to refer to this as the “MENA-ISRAME conflict.” The acronym “MENA” represents the Middle East and North Africa, while “ISRAME” is a combination of the first three letters of “Israel” and “America,” acknowledging the United States’ deep involvement.

While this term may not roll off the tongue, it better captures the reality that this conflict is no longer just about Arabs and Israelis. It highlights the broader geopolitical interests, including the significant role of the United States, as well as the presence of Iran, Turkey, and other regional players. Naming the conflict in such a way could help increase awareness of the enormous costs—both human and financial—that it has inflicted on all parties involved. It could also provide a clearer framework for addressing the conflict’s resolution by acknowledging the full spectrum of participants.

The Middle East has been the setting of long, violent conflicts for decades, but the current phase of fighting is distinct in its complexity. The traditional framework of the “Arab-Israeli conflict” no longer does justice to the wide array of participants, both regional and global, that are now involved.

What began as a war between Israel and its Arab neighbors has transformed into something far more intricate, involving non-Arab actors like Iran, non-state militant groups, and the United States. The changing nature of the conflict necessitates an updated name that more accurately reflects these realities. The “MENA-ISRAME conflict” may not be perfect, but it begins to move us toward a more precise understanding of the evolving situation. With continued fighting and no clear end in sight, finding a solution that considers all stakeholders is imperative to ending this destructive cycle.