Shifting Sands
The Trump presidency and the remaking of the Middle East
In 1973, in support of the Arab combatants (primarily Egypt and Syria) in the Yom Kippur War, the Arab oil producers instituted an embargo against any country that supported Israel. This led to an overnight doubling of the oil price and even greater increases at petrol pumps in the United States, where the economic impact clouded the rest of the decade and fatally undermined the presidency of Jimmy Carter.
The degree to which the Palestinian cause was at the heart of the foreign policies of Arab nations at that time is easy to see. This is no longer the case. In the modern era, the only Arab nation apparently prepared to risk real consequences for the Palestinians is Yemen, or more accurately the region of Yemen controlled by the Houthis, a radical Islamist militia that practices a variant of Shi’a Islam. The Houthis have been known for their “Death to Israel” chants as well as their missile strikes on targets in Israel. The Houthis have also hit commercial shipping in the Red Sea, although they have not done this for several months, reserving their fire for Israel specifically. In doing so, they have dramatically increased their popularity in Yemen, where a war-weary population suffers under their authoritarian rule. I discussed this in a recent podcast episode with
, an expert on the country.The Americans have stopped their direct assault on the Houthis - Trump tired of the costs, the losses of American drones (and some fighter jets - albeit not to hostile fire) and even went as far as commenting on their “bravery”. So America has a ceasefire with the Houthis but has left them to continue to attack Israel, in supposed solidarity with the Palestinians.
The Palestinians in Gaza are currently being starved of basic supplies of food and other essentials by the Netanyahu government, some of whose ministers do not hide their genocidal intentions.1 Beyond the Houthis, many Arab states claim to be defending the Palestinians, but no Arab state currently appears ready to take real steps to change the situation, whether by allowing refugees, committing funds for reconstruction, or land swaps that might allow for resettlement. It can be argued that it is not the responsibility of Arab countries to rescue the Gazans immiserated by Israel, but the point here is tthat the traditions of Arab solidarity have weakened substantially over recent years.
In Saudi Arabia, the country that led the 1973 embargo, there is talk of no normalisation of the country’s relations with Israel until such time as a peace settlement has been reached for the Palestinians, but this condition has not been allowed to stand in the way of the country’s burgeoning economic relations with the United States. Under President Biden, normalisation of Saudi relations with Israel was a precondition for an expanded package of economic and military aid between the United States and the Kingdom, including sensitive civil nuclear technology.
By contrast, during President Trump’s recent visit to the region, he made it very clear to the Saudis (and other regional governments) that no ideological or political barriers should exist to big, multibillion dollar deals. Whilst Trump is always prone to exaggeration, he has claimed deals with the Saudis that might one day be worth $1 trillion. Whatever the truth of these claims, one element of it which appears not to be in doubt is planned co-operation on civil nuclear technology. In spite of their fabulous oil wealth, as well as solar and other renewable resources, the Saudis have never hidden their desire to develop in this area, including the possibility of nuclear weapons at some future point. The Americans will argue that it is better that they are working on this rather than the Chinese or Russians. Some might argue that it would be better if Saudi Arabia was never allowed anywhere near nuclear technology. This is a view that many Israelis would share.
In other fields, the ‘business-first’ approach of the Trump administration spells difficulties for Israel: lifting sanctions on Syria and Trump’s meeting the president directly is contrary to Israel’s policy of keeping Syria in a balkanised state, divided between various competing factions. The Trump administration, generally unconvinced at the idea of international aid, is sending money to Lebanon and appears keen for reconstruction to begin. And finally, the big prize - a US-Iran deal - appears at least to be on the table, albeit with many obstacles that could potentially upset that goal.
Meanwhile, America’s traditional ally in the region, Israel, might be feeling a little neglected. Every single one of Trump’s Middle Eastern initiatives come at the expense of Israel’s immediate security interests. And Netanyahu’s policy of defeating Hamas is at odds with the Trump administration’s priority of getting the hostages out. Just as Trump has tired of supporting America’s European allies, he shows little affection for Netanyahu or his country. “Israel, is absolutely losing the PR war,” he said in April.
In a way, it should not be surprising that president who has no ideological basis and hates spending money would tire of spending it on Israel. But if it does happen, it would still represent a transformation of decades of American policy in the region. There are, of course, still very influential pro-Israel voices on the American right. But are they strong enough to drown the influence of the CEOs of America’s biggest businesses all salivating at the prospect of getting rich on Gulf money? Perhaps Netanyahu’s capacity for stretching the patience of almost everyone is about to - finally - cost him dear.
In the interests of balance it is worth noting that many of Israel's enemies also talk in genocidal terms. Unlike Israel, none of these enemies appears to have the resources to carry out their threats. It is also worth noting that the agreed definition of genocide in international law is not limited to mass killings, and includes “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”