As America becomes increasingly aware of the strategic danger posed by the People’s Republic of China, conventional wisdom gravitates toward the opinion that Washington must turn its attention away from other parts of the world and toward East Asia and the Pacific Rim. But such an approach misreads Xi Jinping’s goals. Yair Albeck explains:

In Beijing’s grand design, the Middle East plays an indispensable role. But Western analysts have often misjudged China’s interests in the region as purely commercial. While Xi values the region for its economic potential, he sees it as one of the most important arenas of competition with the United States.

In the United Arab Emirates, China has constructed facilities at Khalifa Port and a pipeline stretching from the major oil field in Habshan to the Port of Fujairah. China has also invested in the Duqm Port in Oman. These projects demonstrate China’s focus on bolstering its trade with the Gulf and ensuring the smooth flow of oil from the region. Consequently, it is emerging as a dominant player in renewable energy and a major participant in the fossil-fuels market.

These endeavors lay the groundwork for a prospective military presence, in accordance with Beijing’s long-articulated principle of “first civilian, then military.” Because the Middle East is vital for China’s energy future, this approach will further solidify China’s long-term energy security and improve its self-sufficiency.

To maintain its leadership role in the Middle East, the U.S. needs to demonstrate its commitment to ensuring the security of its allies in the region. To this end, Washington possesses one crucial advantage over Beijing: the ability to back its commitments with military power. This advantage should form the core of any long-term vision the U.S. presents to its regional partners. Washington should explain how it will ensure stability and prosperity, prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and stop Tehran’s proxy attacks on U.S. allies. Otherwise, the U.S. risks creating a vacuum that only Beijing can fill.

Considering the current state of Israel-Arab relations, Ghaith al-Omari writes

First and foremost, no ceasefire will be possible without the release of Israeli hostages and commitments to disarm Hamas and remove it from power. The final say on these matters rests with Hamas commanders on the ground in Gaza, who have been largely impervious to foreign pressure so far. At minimum, however, the United States should insist that Qatari and Egyptian mediators push Hamas’s external leadership to accept these conditions publicly, which could increase pressure on the group’s Gaza leadership.

Washington should also demand a clear, public position from key Arab states regarding disarmament. The Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas endorsed this position in a June letter to Saudi Arabia and France, giving Arab states Palestinian cover for endorsing it themselves.

Some Arab states have already indicated a willingness to play a significant role, but they will have little incentive to commit resources and personnel to Gaza unless Israel (1) provides guarantees that it will not occupy the Strip indefinitely, and (2) removes its veto on a PA role in Gaza’s future, even if only symbolic at first. Arab officials are also seeking assurances that any role they play in Gaza will be in the context of a wider effort to reach a two-state solution.

On the other hand, Washington must remain mindful that current conditions between Israel and the Palestinians are not remotely conducive to . . . implementing a two-state solution.