For weeks now, the topic of Arab-US relations has dominated discussions at Arab forums focused on shaping the outlook for these relations after Donald Trump takes office in the White House. The debates generally fall into three main perspectives: the first predicts the relationship will be an intractable evil, the second views it as a necessary evil, and the third sees the United States as a reliable friend.
These differing viewpoints are often influenced by a mix of ideology and emotion. However, it is essential to recognise that the United States prioritises its own interests above all else. There is a noticeable shift in international relations, with politics appearing to decline while the economic factor gains increasing prominence. Prioritising politics over economics is akin to putting the cart before the horse; much of what is presented as political is, at its core, economic.
In this region, the oil-driven economies of the GCC and the gas economies of the Eastern Mediterranean — particularly in Lebanon and the shores of Gaza — play a central role. These sectors are primarily shaped by US economic interests, followed closely by European interests.
The US stands as the most advanced, developed, and productive economy globally, reinforced by its influential financial markets. Its dominance extends beyond unparalleled military power to leadership in diplomacy, ideas, and innovation — fields where it wields its most impactful form of soft power.
Today’s global financial system is heavily reliant on the US monetary system and currency. This underscores Trump’s priority on economics, which inherently involves “engaging with the rest of the world” rather than embracing “isolation.”
Historically, the UK stands as America’s closest and most reliable ally. Yet, the US approach has often been characterised by trial and adjustment before finding a stable path forward. This pattern is evident in its involvement in Iraq, where attempts to stabilise the state faced significant challenges, as well as in its stance during the Arab Spring in some Arab countries and its dealings with Iran. In each case, the US strategy has been one of experimentation and adaptation, ultimately aiming to arrive at a workable solution.
The UK’s most famous political figure, Winston Churchill, once famously remarked, “America always does the right thing, but after it had tried all the other ways.”
After the shock of 2001 attacks, often referred to as the “Battle of Manhattan” or simply 9/11 attacks, American journalist Lee Smith came to the Middle East. He toured the region and lived in various countries in the region for a time before publishing a book in 2010 titled “The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilisations.
In his historical account, Smith distilled his observations and suggestions about the region. Smith highlighted that, after the First World War, the Middle East was governed by two competing theories from the victorious powers. The French theory posited that the Middle East comprised a mosaic of racial, ethnic, religious and ideological minorities that should be engaged with individually.
In contrast, the British theory emphasised that the majority in the region — particularly in the Arab world — were Sunni Muslims, and therefore cooperation with them should take precedence.
Burden of complex challenges
The book argues that when the US began actively intervening in the Arab East, it initially adopted the British theory, focusing on cooperation with the Sunni majority. The suggests that after the Sept. 11 attacks, the US, instead, should have adopted the French theory, engaging with the region’s diverse racial, ethnic and ideological minorities individually.
This shift is reflected in the US stance during the so-called Arab Spring in the second decade of the 21st century, as well as in its policies toward Iraq, Syria and Yemen. The application of this theory has had significant implications, and its potential negative consequences warrant serious consideration. The US now confronts significant economic challenges, marked by the unprecedented fact that the cost of servicing its public debt has exceeded the entire budget of its armed forces.
At the same time, regional threats continue to escalate. Iran is determined to become nuclear, driven by its belief that nuclear capability is crucial for protecting its national security and bolstering its regional influence. Meanwhile, the region remains mired in turmoil, intensified by the lack of a just resolution to the Palestinian issue.
As a result, the US foreign policy in the coming era will face a heavy burden of complex challenges. However, economic priorities are expected to take precedence over political considerations.
On the economic front, the US may be driven toward one of two scenarios. The first involves pursuing peace in volatile regions such as Ukraine and the Middle East, a path that demands “substantial compromises” and intensive engagement with all involved parties. The alternative scenario is to largely ignore these conflicts, allowing them to persist. This approach would leave regional security vulnerable to heightened risks.
Finally, the region is rife with conflicts, spanning the Eastern Mediterranean, Sudan, the Bab Al Mandeb Strait, the Strait of Hormuz, Iraq, and even Libya. Addressing these challenges requires combined efforts to build unified positions among the region’s countries to effectively tackle these pressing priority issues.
Mohammad Alrumaihi is an author and Professor of Political Sociology at Kuwait University
