6 ms·

America Has Lost the Arab World

37 points by robtherobber 6mo ago

xg15 6mo 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...
amitport 6mo ago
They must mean 'The Arab World Has Lost America,' don't they?
- high_na_euv 6mo ago
  Why?
pbiggar 6mo ago
Inshallah!
pbiggar 6mo ago
[flagged]
- strathmeyer 6mo ago
  [dead]
manarth 6mo ago
https://archive.is/HgJde https://archive.is/HgJde
juliusceasar 6mo ago
Israel has become Israeli puppet state.
sidchilling 6mo ago
Did it belong to America to lose?
aaron695 6mo ago
[dead]
stavros 6mo ago
America has lost the entire world. Everyone has realized that they can't depend on the US as much as they did and are looking to distance themselves. 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.
- benterix 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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.
- benterix 6mo 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 6mo ago
    Saudi funding Ukraine and making Russia collapse to gain their Nuclear Weapons would be quite the future timeline.
  - pseudohadamard 6mo 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.
spwa4 6mo 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 6mo ago
  [Citations needed]
- xg15 6mo 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.
robomartin 6mo 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.

37 points by robtherobber 6mo ago

xg15 6mo 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...

amitport 6mo ago

They must mean 'The Arab World Has Lost America,' don't they?

high_na_euv 6mo ago
Why?

pbiggar 6mo ago

Inshallah!

pbiggar 6mo ago

[flagged]

strathmeyer 6mo ago
[dead]

manarth 6mo ago

https://archive.is/HgJde https://archive.is/HgJde

juliusceasar 6mo ago

Israel has become Israeli puppet state.

sidchilling 6mo ago

Did it belong to America to lose?

aaron695 6mo ago

[dead]

stavros 6mo ago

America has lost the entire world. Everyone has realized that they can't depend on the US as much as they did and are looking to distance themselves. 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.

benterix 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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.

benterix 6mo 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 6mo ago
  Saudi funding Ukraine and making Russia collapse to gain their Nuclear Weapons would be quite the future timeline.
- pseudohadamard 6mo 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.

spwa4 6mo 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 6mo ago
[Citations needed]
xg15 6mo 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.

robomartin 6mo 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.