America Has Lost the Arab World

It's too bad, because the unity that we had before Trump was great for peace, but now the rule of the strong is plunging the world back into wars and uncertainty.

benterix2• 3 months ago

Paradoxically China looks like the bastion of peace.

And we're just in Q1 of 2026... I can hardly imagine the long years of 2027 and 2028.

cassianoleal• 3 months ago

Paradoxically China looks like the bastion of peace.

What's paradoxical about that? Or, why would it be any more of a paradox than the USA being it?

dzhiurgis• 3 months ago

bastion of peace

Internet censored. Uyghurs on trains to jail. Supports 3 terrorist states.

So much peace they might hug you to death.

decimalenough• 3 months ago

The article is dry recitation of polling numbers, but the geopolitical implications of this shift are staggering.

For example, the Saudis have long relied on their alliance with the US for defense, allowing them to plow their prodigious oil wealth into vanity projects like ski resorts in the desert and 100-km-lomg skyscrapers. But if they feel they can't rely on the US anymore (and after the past month, can they?), they could easily invest in building their own nuclear weapons instead. Israel would obviously not tolerate this, but even they would likely hesitate to pick a fight with the one country in the region that can (and does) outspend them 2x on defence.

benterix2• 3 months ago

While I agree, nuclear weapons have their own drawbacks and unless you invest in the full triad, just having siloes may even make you more of a victim (that's their main function anyway).

What they can and have started to do is to make deals with partners like Ukraine to diversify their defense systems so they are independent from the USA.

nojvek• 3 months ago

Saudi funding Ukraine and making Russia collapse to gain their Nuclear Weapons would be quite the future timeline.

pseudohadamard• 3 months ago

As Iran has shown, you don't need nukes, just a means of cutting off, or at least severely restricting, the flow of oil. All Saudi needs to do is let the US and/or the world know that if they do/don't do X the taps turn off, as Iran has shown. That's a more powerful weapon than having a few sanctions-triggering bombs.

xg153• 3 months ago

I guess in the end, Trump will have made good on his promise to pull the US out of the Middle East, bases, alliances and all.

5D chess, man, 5D chess...

spwa42• 3 months ago

Note WHEN it changed: After Oct 7 2023.

In other words, the real cause of this shift is that Oct 7 showed that it is possible to beat America, and destroy Israel. The reaction in the entire Arab world? Immediately pile on!

In other words: this was a great PR win for (and by) hamas, showing that US/Israel, and the entire west CAN be beaten. And it was very much a PR win, in other words: it's false information. They didn't convince many Syrians, who had to directly deal with Iranian islamist actions directly. And in Lebanon, it's about equal, which I'm going to guess is not the opinion of all Lebanese. There's 2 groups of Lebanese: hezbollah (who number in the millions) that get paid by Iran's regime and everyone else, that get killed by hezbollah, and aren't very exited, to put it mildly, that hezbollah goes out to kill Syrians in Syria and Iraq and even Iranians in Iran.

The arab world is exited for this to happen. Arabs on top again! So ... this is not a failure by the (Biden or Trump 1) administration, and not a reaction to the deaths in this conflict. Also: not a chance in hell that this actually happens.

Also ... how dumb are these people? "Who is committed to upholding international law?" with China consistently scoring the highest? Really? The problems with US/EU/Israel in international law is that they don't uphold international law against other actors, only against themselves (e.g. they don't defend Sudan, except Israel, and then only a little bit). But China is actively committing warcrimes by the dozens.

rainingmonkey• 3 months ago

[Citations needed]

xg153• 3 months ago

"After Oct 7" realistically means "after Israel's reaction to Oct 7, and the US' tolerance of that reaction".

The IDF took a day to stop and repel Hamas' attack on October 7. The attack lasted painfully long, but after control was regained, the Israeli government could have chosen all kinds of long-term strategies to end the conflict with the Palestinians. Instead, they chose the most inhumane strategy possible.

As for the US and the West, a certain amount of ethical double-standards regarding the Palestinians and Israeli impunity was known to everyone, I think. But I imagine most people thought that the western support for Israeli treatment of Palestinians would have some kind of limit. The tolerance of bombardment and starvation until western citizens threatened general strikes showed everyone that there weren't any.

I think that was the big change that was caused by October 7.

spwa42• 3 months ago

No, it doesn't.

Israel's reaction to Oct 7 came pretty damn late. Western protests were caused by Oct 7, by hamas' massacre, NOT by Israel's reaction. Let's face reality here: the biggest massacre of Jews since the holocaust, and WITHIN 2 DAYS masses of people were "protesting", but really muslims were celebrating the Oct 7 genocide with slogans like "gas the Jews", around the world. From Sydney to London, to Washington. More than a month before Israel did anything other than close the border.

The IDF took 12 days to stop the hamas attack, because the IDF did not immediately send forces (aside from 1 helicopter). You see, Iran's hamas attack was never anything more than a distraction, and Iran always meant for hamas to get slaughtered. The places they attacked, look at it on the map ... there's nowhere to go. Before you see anything remotely important there's dozens of kilometers of desert, without barely any shelter, no trees, no rivers, nothing, without any protection for their forces. They were always going to get slaughtered. Israel fortified Ashkelon, which hamas will need to take before anything will happen. Turns out, hamas was stopped halfway through Sderot, on the public square (look at the map to see just how bad a performance that is. They could literally have walked around it, and nothing would have stopped them. They did not. When facing actual forces, not civilians, hamas couldn't defeat a single police office. They attacked the office, the police officers retreated into the square, and every single hamas attacker that made it into the office died there)

The IDF was afraid (I should say preparing) for a real attack from Hezbollah, keeping their options open. The IDF was 100% correct in their assessment that Hezbollah would attack, over land, before any reaction against Gaza happened, in fact before a single day passed. The Hezbollah attack would come through forest, over mountains, where they might hold actual defensible positions, unlike what hamas did. And the hezbollah attack actually might have gotten support from Syria. It didn't, but that was at least vaguely realistic. So the decision to not immediately counterattack hamas was made. And, obviously, now not talked about anymore.

So no, the protest marches in the west occurred before the first move against Gaza.

Here's a timeline of events:

October 7, 2023 — Hamas and allied militants attacked southern Israel, crossing from Gaza and firing rockets. Israel said about 1,200 people were killed and around 250 were taken hostage. There were some Israeli airstrikes during the attack, but nothing more.

October 9, 2023 — Israel announces the border will stay closed for at least 2 months.

October 9, 2023 — Sydney: a pro-Palestinian protest took place outside the Sydney Opera House, just two days after the Hamas attack. There are accusations of the slogan "gas the Jews" shouted, again and again, at the Opera house and in front of the main synagogue of Sydney.

October 14, 2023 — One of the first big Western pro-Palestinian protests after October 7 took place in London, with thousands marching.

October 15, 2023 — Sydney: thousands joined a larger pro-Palestinian rally in Sydney.

October 21, 2023 — A much larger London march drew about 100,000 people, showing the protests had become mass demonstrations in Western capitals.

October 21, 2023 — Sydney: thousands more marched in Sydney again, after police concerns and legal disputes over approval.

October 22–26, 2023 — Israel carried out a series of limited ground raids into Gaza, including overnight operations and what Reuters described as its biggest raid so far on October 26.

October 27–28, 2023 — The IDF moved in to Gaza.

robomartin7• 3 months ago

These conversations are always interesting. Most treat the world as a single variable problem when, in reality, it is an exceedingly complex multivariate problem. And the Arab world sure is responsible for a large number of variables to decipher reality from a simple article that ignores so much.

Others have mentioned China as a benevolent actor of sorts. I find this interesting, maybe even laughable. China is not interested in coming to the aid of anyone in the world. I am not saying this to criticize China. I believe this is purely a statement of fact: They don't do that.

If we pulled it forward to modern times, China, for example, would not put it all on the table and lose nearly 500K lives to save Europe in a world war. They exist for one thing, and one thing only: To do business that benefits their nation. And that's it.

Again, not being critical, just stating what I believe to be a fact. I can also say that I envy that focus to some extent. It's "China first" to an extreme level.

OK, so, if we accept my premise: Who in the world would come to the aid of societies in need?

Let's also agree that perfection does not and will note ever exist on this planet. So, insisting on perfect interventions, actions and outcomes is not rational. We are --humanity-- not perfect.

Well, the answer to this is simple. The only nation with the ability and the demonstrated willingness to risk life, limb and treasure is the US. The rest of the American continent cannot and has never taken this role. Europe has self-decimated over the decades in terms of these capabilities. So, they can't. Africa? Asia? Who's left? Nobody.

Without a doubt, the Arab world --or Middle East in general-- has been a complex neighborhood for quite some time. Yet, things have gotten massively worse when a country like Iran sponsors murderous terrorists in the region and --as confirmed by the current conflict-- makes it a point to build-up a Middle-East-Annihilation arsenal of missiles that could have almost no other purpose than to obliterate everything around them and even as far as Europe.

And then you add the potential for some of these missiles carrying nuclear warheads.

And then you add a regime that simply has not been a rational actor.

So, what do you do? Do you wait until they are a nuclear power? Just like we waited for Hitler to come to power and kill millions of Jews and others? How much slack do you give a regime who's publicly stated goals, for decades, have been the complete destruction of others?

Without a doubt, the actions of the last month or so have not been perfect. They will not be. That's just reality. For example, I don't understand how sinking their entire navy, destroying their air force, destroying their anti-aircraft capabilities, some 20,000 sorties and targets later...we still have to make a deal with them to keep Hormuz open.

How does that happen? Drones and missiles, of course. What is remarkable is that you'd think we would have mitigated that danger to the point where the international waters of the strait would no longer be threatened. I don't understand why stupid reporters never ask this question. Well, I answered it right there.

And yet, to go back to the thought: Who else but the US could have even approached setting Iran back far enough to make the neighborhood less of an issue? China? They would never. They have happily been selling Iran weapons hardware and know-how. They do not exist to benefit the rest of the world. China first. That's the policy.

Can anyone imagine just how far worse --horrific, really-- this would be if Iran had gone nuclear in the next few months or couple of years? This would truly be unimaginable. We've already seen that NATO does not seem to be willing to engage and might be largely useless.

So, while not perfect, at this point in time I believe that this is one of those "treating the cancer early" scenarios. Iran was on a straight path to being a nuclear nation run by deranged theocratic lunatics. This, while not ideal, not perfect, not desirable, not pretty, is likely a good thing. Now it has to end with the right outcome, whose minimum definition is to denuclearize Iran. From there, it would be nice to see the wonderful Iranian people get out from under the oppression they have been living under for so long. If you know any Iranians (we have many friends) you know they are actively rooting for the US to succeed and are thankful. Same with Venezuelans, BTW.

licebmi__at__• 3 months ago

Nobody expects China to run the next protection racket. Because no matter how people try to whitewash, a protection racket is not something decent people (or countries) do.

robomartin7• 3 months ago

Sure. Read my prior comment. We (the US) should pull out of every nation, NATO and stop funding the UN. If the world needs help, each nation can face it on their own or team-up on a case-by-case basis to deal with their issues.

I don't claim the US to be perfect. Not even close. Yet, we cover 70% of Europe's defense (likely more), fund the UN to the tune of billions, etc.

It's 2026. I think it's time for everyone who thinks the US is evil to just step back and be responsible for their own shit. Fine with me. I'd rather invest that money here for infrastructure, education, affordable housing, healthcare, etc. No more miliary bases outside the US. No more funding for NATO or the UN. No more subsidies for dozens of nations.

xg153• 3 months ago

Yeah, if you only subscribe to the US view of the world, then of course the US are the good guys.

Problem is that the rest of the world increasingly does not follow that view anymore.

Can anyone imagine just how far worse --horrific, really-- this would be if Iran had gone nuclear in the next few months or couple of years?
I believe that this is one of those "treating the cancer early" scenarios.

There was nothing "early" about this. Iran's nuclear program exists for decades and somehow they were always "just a few weeks away" from a nuke.

robomartin7• 3 months ago

Yeah, if you only subscribe to the US view of the world, then of course the US are the good guys.

Kindly show me where I said that "the US are the good guys".

There are no good guys in this crap. The world is a mess. And you cannot do any of this without things getting messy.

As for my opinion: As a US citizen, I would be perfectly fine with the US closing down all military bases in Europe and elsewhere. Bring it all home.

If Europe wants to defend their territory, they should do it themselves. The US funds somewhere around 70% of NATO. We should exit that thankless organization. Countries like Spain can face reality on their own. We can use the money at home. I don't know how much we spend on all the bases around the world. I'd shut them all down. Again, <insert country here> can invest their own citizen's taxes to defend themselves.

I'd say the same about the UN. We are spending billions to support that organization. Why? Let someone else host them, we'll gladly show up and vote.

In other words, if all the US has gained at an international level for what we have done, it's time to stop.

I don't have a problem with this at all. It isn't about being an isolationist. It's about what we are paying for and how we are being taken advantage of.

This is very similar with the situation we had with drugs. We pay for the R&D here and Europe (and others) enjoyed low drug prices because they did not have to pay for it. We subsidized low prices around the world. Now that is largely ending. Drug prices are going up around the world because we are no longer going to be taken advantage of in that domain. If you want the drugs we develop, pay your fair share of the R&D.

Is any of the above simple or perfect in concept and execution? No. Of course not. Name anything in international relations that is. Nobody can. It does not exist. But you certainly can try to do the right thing and end-up people hating you for it. Whereas those who do nothing don't have that problem. Funny how that works.

tzs2• 3 months ago

Well, the answer to this is simple. The only nation with the ability and the demonstrated willingness to risk life, limb and treasure is the US. The rest of the American continent cannot and has never taken this role.

Canada would like a word.

  US deaths in WW2: 420k
  US population in 1940: 132000k
  US death rate from WW2: 318/100k

  Canada deaths in WW2: 43k
  Canada population in 1940: 11300k
  Canada death rate from WW2: 380/100k

  US deaths in WW1: 117k
  US population in 1918: 103000k
  US death rate from WW2: 114/100k

  Canada deaths in WW2: 66k
  Canada population in 1918: 8100k
  Canada death rate from WW2: 814/100k

robomartin7• 3 months ago

Sadly, that Canada is not today's Canada.

jst1fthsdys2• 3 months ago

Iran was on a straight path to being a nuclear nation run by deranged theocratic lunatics.

No, they were not. No more than Saddam was close to having WMDs. Your entire premise is based on Israeli lies.

How much slack do you give a regime whose publicly stated goals, for decades, have been the complete destruction of others?

How about you answer what we are supposed to do with regimes whose actual actions over the last 80 years have been the destruction of others? I'm talking about the US and Israel, btw.

If you know any Iranians (we have many friends) you know they are actively rooting for the US to succeed and are thankful

How many of them actually live in Iran? I'm sure the monarchists in LA love that the country is being leveled.

robomartin7• 3 months ago

No, they were not.

How do you know that?

You do realize that the Iranian government (whatever remains of it) is actually insisting, as a condition, that their nuclear materials not be removed from the country?

America Has Lost the Arab World

Related Stories