“Middle East” becoming a thing of the past? In the US, there are suggestions to view Israel as part of Western Asia

The American journal The National Interest published an article by Jordan McGillis on May 12, 2026, under the headline “‘West Asia’ Is the New Middle East.” This is both a review and a geopolitical commentary on the book by analyst Mohammed Soliman “West Asia: A New American Grand Strategy in the Middle East,” released in the spring of 2026. The main idea of the publication is harsh: Washington should stop viewing the region through the old formula of the “Middle East” and start perceiving it as part of the broader space of West Asia and the Indian Ocean basin.

For Israel, this discussion is not academic. How the US defines the region affects not only the language of analysts but also real strategy: the security of the Persian Gulf, the role of India, relations with the UAE, trade routes, technological chains, energy, and the containment of Iran.

Where and when did this idea appear

The publication appeared in The National Interest — an American publication associated with foreign policy and strategic discussion in Washington. The material is posted in the Silk Road Rivalries blog and is dedicated to Soliman’s book, who is presented as the director of McLarty Associates and a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute.

The book was discussed earlier: on February 12, 2026, the Middle East Institute released a podcast “From the Middle East to West Asia: Redefining America’s Global Strategy,” where Soliman explained why the US should move away from the logic of nation-building and transition to order-building — not building states, but creating a new regional order. The podcast recording was made on February 11, 2026.

Why the debate is not just about the name

At first glance, “Middle East” and “West Asia” may seem like just different geographical labels. But in American strategic logic, words are rarely neutral.

The term “Middle East” historically pulls the region towards a European perspective: middle — because it is closer to Europe. “West Asia” changes the angle. In this picture, Israel, the Gulf countries, Egypt, Iran, India, and Pakistan no longer appear as separate fragments of different political maps. They become parts of one large corridor between the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, the Indian Ocean, and the Indo-Pacific region.

This is what The National Interest calls the new reality, which American strategists risk noticing too late again.

Why the Indian Ocean is becoming the center of the new map

The reviewer emphasizes: American foreign policy has long talked about a “pivot to Asia,” but in practice, it too often reduced Asia to China and the Pacific Ocean. As a result, the Indian Ocean — a space that connects East Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, the Persian Gulf, India, Pakistan, Southeast Asia, and Australia — fell out of sight.

This is not empty geography. Through this belt flow energy resources, maritime trade, food, raw materials, technological routes, and political alliances.

The National Interest separately notes that the population of countries around the Indian Ocean basin exceeds 3 billion people. At the center of this system is India, which has already surpassed China in population and is increasingly claiming the role of an independent geopolitical center.

What this means for Israel

For the Israeli audience, the key point here is not terminology, but Israel’s place in the new system. If earlier Israel was often described through conflict, security, and the Arab-Israeli context, then in the logic of Soliman and The National Interest, the country becomes part of a broader “Indo-Abrahamic order.”

This is a space where Israel is connected not only with the US but also with India, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, maritime routes, technologies, energy, and logistics. In this sense, the Abraham Accords, the I2U2 format involving India, Israel, the US, and the UAE, as well as regional corridor projects, do not look like separate initiatives but elements of one new architecture. The National Interest directly points to I2U2 as an example of such logic.

NANews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency considers this topic an important signal for Israel: the country is increasingly fitting less into the old “Middle East” map and more into the node between the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, India, and the American strategy of containing China.

Iran, India, and the risk of a major US mistake

The most sensitive part of this discussion is Iran. The National Interest warns: a possible war or further escalation around Iran will not remain an internal problem of the “Middle East.” It could hit South Asia, Pakistan, and the entire Indian Ocean system.

For Israel, this is especially important. Israel is used to perceiving the Iranian threat through missiles, the nuclear program, proxy groups, and regional networks like Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other Tehran allies. But the American discussion promoted by Soliman suggests expanding the framework: Iran is not only a Middle Eastern crisis but a potential rift between West Asia, South Asia, and global maritime trade.

This approach makes India an even more important player. New Delhi is not just a large country “somewhere nearby.” It is a center of attraction for trade, technology, energy, and diplomacy. At the same time, India does not want to be a junior partner of the US and does not intend to automatically join foreign blocs. Its strategy is multilateral balancing, and this is what makes the region more complex for Washington.

Why the old map no longer works

The National Interest essentially tells American politicians: you cannot continue to mechanically divide the region into “Middle East,” “South Asia,” and “Africa” if real connections run across these old divisions. Gas from Qatar, trade through Suez, Indian industrial chains, Israeli technologies, Gulf security, the Pakistani factor, and Chinese influence — all this has long been working as a single system.

But the article also criticizes Soliman. The author believes that even the concept of “West Asia” may not be broad enough because the real center of gravity is the entire Indian Ocean basin, including East Africa and parts of Southeast Asia.

This makes the debate even more interesting. It’s not about how beautifully to rename the region. It’s about whether the US, Israel, and their partners will see the new map before China, Iran, Russia, and other forces interested in weakening American influence begin to draw it definitively.

For Israel, the conclusion is pragmatic: future regional security will depend not only on borders with Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, or Iran. It will depend on India, maritime routes, technological alliances, energy, American strategy, and Jerusalem’s ability to integrate into the new order not as a periphery, but as one of the key nodes of West Asia.