No. of Recommendations: 7
I believe in meeting the world where it is, not where I wish it to be.
That seems inaccurate. You clearly believe that U.S. foreign policy should try to change the world - specifically, to try to reduce China's strength and power globally and reorient as many of the world's countries towards the U.S. and away from China as possible. You just have different things about where you wish the world to be that you prioritize. Nothing wrong with that as a general principle - almost by definition anyone that has opinions about foreign policy has to decide what their priorities are. But it's still setting priorities about the world you wish it to be, not merely meeting the world where it is.
So they face a choice. Put aside the Fist In The Air Justice For Palestine stuff and team up with the Israelis against their *other* enemy of Iran -or- continue a cause for a people that have (in the Arab mind) outlived their usefulness and who are now more trouble than they're worth (yes, that is a very ruthless way to put it but this is the perspective over there; I merely repeat it). And as a bonus get closer to the United States.
Behind door number 2 is having Mossad raise hell inside your country knowing that you have zero ability to stop it or retaliate in any meaningful *plus* you piss off Uncle Sam.
So it's a very easy call.
All militarily weaker countries end up having to ally/triangulate in order to meet their national security needs. The ME nations are no exception. During the Cold War they played against both the U.S. and the Soviets (except for the nations that chose to obviously align, like Iran or Israel). It's not always the easy call to align with the strongest country in your neighborhood, because they might extract a very high domestic price for your alliance - that's why Taiwan and Japan and other nations don't just ally with China.
One factor that's kept the ME nations somewhat at a remove from the West (and the U.S.) after the Cold War is their dismal status on democracy and human rights. Not their position supporting Palestinians getting their own country, which has been the official policy of the U.S. since at least Carter. But because these are oppressive monarchies and dictatorships who correctly feared having too close an alignment with the U.S. (and therefore Israel) because of our arm-twisting on human rights.
Trump's transactional approach to foreign policy eliminated that block. No one's going to ask them to adopt our ideas of free speech or political openness. So there's more deal space available. Which is why I wonder if the Peace Plan isn't really about Gaza at all, but just clearing the way for Abraham Accords Mk II and letting Gaza just go back to 10/6.
