Follow us on social

google cta
50221849743_f936bac937_o-scaled

From little Sparta to Trojan horse: Beware the US-Israel-UAE strategic agenda for the Arab region

This is the latest reminder that American diplomacy in the Middle East remains driven mainly by Israeli priorities and US domestic politics.

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

It certainly was dramatic, as US President Donald Trump announced in the White House Thursday an agreement by the United Arab Emirates and Israel to move to full normalisation. 

But is it really a harbinger of wider peace in the Middle East? Or rather, something to cause us all great concern, as three of the region's most militaristic and aggressive powers join forces?

In reality, this is the latest reminder that American diplomacy in the Middle East remains driven mainly by Israeli priorities and US domestic politics, now made more combustible with the addition of aggressive Emirati policies.

One hint about what the world witnessed Thursday was the collection of white men in the room with Trump, including his senior adviser Jared Kushner, US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, and Brian Hook, the US State Department's special envoy for Iran, whose maximum pressure campaign against Iran will go down in history as one of the greatest diplomatic failures in recent history.

These and other men in the Trump adulation society are defined by their commitment to three factors that have little to do with "advancing peace in the Middle East region". Those three factors are deep commitments to Donald Trump's personal ambitions, the state of Israel in its current expansionist, colony-building mode, and an exaggerated enmity towards Iran.

On all three counts, a majority of Americans, according to pollsters, do not share those three views. This typifies the trends in Israel and the UAE also, where the public's views do not count. But this is politics, in the White House, during a presidential election year, where Israel essentially writes the script that Trump reads.

Assorted Arabs - in this case showcased Emiratis and nonexistent Palestinians - are just convenient props for an electioneering mini-rally, whose key audience is the Christian evangelical voters and some extremist American Zionist donors who are crucial for Trump's reelection hopes.

The White House event was more like a cult gathering to heap praise on the leader than a serious move into Arab-Israeli peace-making, including Trump's own suggestion that the agreement be named after him and the suggestion by one of his senior officials that he be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

The announcement was generally received positively in western media because the American public is as ignorant of Middle East realities as their president is, and they respond to hope-filled clichés about peace and prosperity. The agreement's throbbing heart - moving towards formal UAE-Israeli relations - only gives a public face to Israeli-Emirati quiet cooperation that has been going on for a few years.

Even if a few other worried Arab states formalise relations with Israel, this would only expand the gulf between rulers and ruled in most Arab countries, adding new tensions in an already wobbly region.

The tripartite American-Israeli-Emirati statement that Trump read out, which was clearly based on an Israeli first draft, talks of the three states launching "a Strategic Agenda for the Middle East to expand diplomatic, trade, and security cooperation," because the three "share a similar outlook regarding the threats and opportunities in the region."

This should cause most people in the region to worry, given the militaristic and authoritarian policies pursued across the region in recent years by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Emirati Crown Prince and effective leader Mohammad bin Zayed, such as in Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Qatar, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and other lands.

Along with the US, the combined policies of these three countries probably have been the primary driver of tension, warfare, death, and destruction across the Middle East -- with their apprentice regional mischief-maker Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman seeking entry into the club.

The "similar outlook" they share does not acknowledge that majorities of Arabs resist Israeli territorial expansion and subjugation of Palestinians. Most Arab leaders fear allowing their people to express themselves freely, and instead seek protection via security and surveillance-based associations with the US and Israel, among others.

The Arab states have suffered a century of erratic development and, recently, growing poverty, warfare, and authoritarianism, for the most part because their leaders focus primarily on assuring their own incumbency, security, and wealth at the expense of their own people's political, economic, and civil rights.

No wonder we are in a decade of nonstop mass protests to remove the rulers across the Arab region. Sudan, Algeria, Lebanon, and Iraq are the latest examples.

Rather than promoting prosperity and people-to-people relations, as promised, this agreement is more likely to spur greater polarisation within and among Arab states, heightened militarism, and perhaps ever more fantastic American interventions.

The Arab authoritarianism that the American and Israeli governments support without exception cannot be camouflaged under snake oil salesmen's tricks like the tripartite agreement's pledge by Israel to "suspend declaring sovereignty over territories" in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem.

Netanyahu immediately said after the announcement that he would continue to annex Palestinian lands. "It's not off the table, not as far as I am concerned," he said, referring to the annexation policy that the US supported in a January White House ceremony on the Trump Vision of Peace plan.

An Emirati diplomat attended that ceremony in January, but basically hid in a corner in the back with two other Arab diplomats, because they needed to support Trump but knew very well that such support for Israeli annexation of Arab lands would only elicit greater hostility to the UAE among Arab people.

Most Americans are not aware that Israel in fact had already suspended its annexation plans after major countries and international organisations said they would punish Israel if it carried out such flagrantly colonial and illegal annexations. So the apparent Israeli concession in this agreement is, like most Israeli and American moves related to Palestine, a lie or a delusion.

The American and Israeli assumption that Israel would be welcome in the region while it continued to occupy and colonise Arab land may pertain to a few individual Arab leaders who are scared of their own people, but it is totally untrue of the Arab people for the most part. Surveys in recent years routinely show that large majorities of around 75 percent of Arabs would normalise ties with Israel only after a Palestinian state came into being and the Palestinian refugees' claims were resolved.

So it is striking that the US and Israel refuse to deal on the basis of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative in which all Arab states offered peace and normal ties with Israel if it responded to Palestinian rights and left the occupied Arab lands it holds.

The path to regional peace, prosperity and security for Arabs, Israelis, Iranians and all others does not pass through settler-colonial extremists in the White House or frightened Arab leaders who refuse to trust their own people. It requires a commitment to equal rights for all under international law, which was nowhere to be seen in the White House drama on Thursday.

This article has been republished with permission from The New Arab.


President Donald J. Trump, joined by White House senior staff members, delivers a statement announcing the agreement of full normalization of relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates Thursday, Aug. 13, 2020, in the Oval Office of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian)
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
nuclear weapons testing
A mushroom cloud expands over the Bikini Atoll during a U.S. nuclear weapons test in 1946. (Shutterstock/ Everett Collection)

Nuke treaty loss a 'colossal' failure that could lead to nuclear arms race

Global Crises

On February 13th, 2025, President Trump said something few expected to hear. He said, “There's no reason for us to be building brand-new nuclear weapons. We already have so many. . . You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons . . . We’re all spending a lot of money that we could be spending on other things that are actually, hopefully, much more productive.”

I could not agree more with that statement. But with today’s expiration of the New START Treaty, we face the very real possibility of a new nuclear arms race — something that, to my knowledge, neither the President, Vice President, nor any other senior U.S. official has meaningfully discussed.

keep readingShow less
Witkoff Kushner Trump
Top image credit: U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff looks on during a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, at Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., December 29, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

As US-Iran talks resume, will Israel play spoiler (again)?

Middle East

This Friday, the latest chapter in the long, fraught history of U.S.-Iran negotiations will take place in Oman. Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi and President Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff will meet in an effort to stave off a war between the U.S. and Iran.

The negotiations were originally planned as a multilateral forum in Istanbul, with an array of regional Arab and Muslim countries present, apart from the U.S. and Iran — Turkey, Qatar, Oman, and Saudi Arabia.

keep readingShow less
Trump Putin
Top image credit: Miss.Cabal/shutterstock.com

Last treaty curbing US, Russia nuclear weapons has collapsed

Global Crises

The end of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the last treaty between the U.S. and Russia placing limits on their respective nuclear arsenals, may not make an arms race inevitable. There is still potential for pragmatic diplomacy.

Both sides can adhere to the basic limits even as they modernize their arsenals. They can bring back some of the risk-reduction measures that stabilized their relationship for years. And they can reengage diplomatically with each other to craft new agreements. The alternative — unconstrained nuclear competition — is dangerous, expensive, and deeply unpopular with most Americans.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.