Follow
A FEW WORDS ABOUT ARAB STATES
What is now crystal clear to Gulf countries is that Washington’s decision-making priorities are:
· U.S. domestic politics
· Israel’s military position
· The credibility of U.S. power globally
According to Roya News, a high-level meeting took place between Mohammed bin Salman, Mohammed bin Zayed, and Omani leadership to discuss the latest regional escalation. On the surface, the language is familiar: coordination, stability, security, red lines. But read properly, it is pre-containment positioning.
The Gulf states are preparing for spillover—missiles, drones, and disruption that could reach oil infrastructure, ports, and U.S. bases across their territory. They are signaling that they expect to be tested, and are positioning themselves for a shared defensive posture.
It looks like the Gulf is trying to hold two positions at once:
· Remain inside the U.S. security architecture
· Avoid provoking Iran into expanding the battlefield
These preparations are as much about political survival as physical defense. They seem to be preparing for a scenario in which the entire system—energy flows, trade routes, and state stability—becomes the battlefield, by engineering the ability to keep oil, trade, and state control functioning while under attack.
Saudi Arabia is thinking about oil vulnerability.
The UAE is thinking about its role as a financial and logistics hub.
Oman is trying to preserve space for mediation.
Jordan is thinking about internal stability—and how to survive being squeezed between escalation and aid dependency.
What remains unspoken is that in preparing to absorb the blows of a conflict they cannot control, they are quietly preparing for a world in which the United States is no longer the one setting the terms of their security.
HOW ARAB STATE ACT
Arab states act within narrow limits. Their priority is regime survival and internal stability, not confrontation with a system they are deeply embedded in where the cost of openly breaking with it is, for them, potentially existential.
Saying "no" carries real risks for them: loss of protection, financial pressure, internal destabilization, and exposure to threats they’re not equipped to handle alone.
The US and her consistent strategy of regional dominance in relation to Israeli escalation doctrine that has already been exercised across multiple cases.
~ In Iraq, the U.S. invasion dismantled the state and reshaped its political order.
~ In Libya, NATO intervention destroyed central authority and left fragmentation.
~ In Syria, prolonged intervention and sanctions have weakened the state and constrained reconstruction.
~ In Lebanon, financial pressure and political isolation have functioned to limit independent policy space.
Across these cases, the pattern is not stability or democratization but the managed weakening of states to prevent any coherent regional power from emerging.
~ Iran is the clearest remaining state still capable of projecting regional influence—through alliances and networks across Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon—and that is precisely why it is now the central target of this strategy. That broader logic—rather than personality alone—is what structures both Netanyahu’s and Trump’s actions.
