Tag: Saudi Arabia

  • A New Power Broker? Saudi Arabia’s Rise in Global Diplomacy

    A New Power Broker? Saudi Arabia’s Rise in Global Diplomacy

    Saudi Arabia refuses to play second to its Gulf rivals. Once trailing behind the UAE and Qatar in tourism, global events, and soft power diplomacy, the kingdom—under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman—now takes the lead, rewriting the script on its own terms.

    From building the world’s tallest tower to hosting mega sporting events, Riyadh is making fascinating moves. But beyond spectacle and grandeur, it is eyeing something even more influential: global diplomacy. For years, Qatar carved out a niche as the go-to mediator in international conflicts, leveraging its strategic neutrality and deep-pocketed diplomacy. Now, Saudi Arabia wants in.

    With its vast wealth, growing influence, and a leadership eager to reshape its global image, Riyadh is positioning itself as a high-stakes negotiator—not just in the Islamic world, but on the world stage. From hosting crucial Russia-Ukraine talks to brokering regional peace efforts, Saudi Arabia is signaling that its ambitions extend far beyond oil and opulence. It aspires to be the power nations turn to in crises—a formidable force in diplomacy, exuding influence and prestige.

    Mediator in the Russia-Ukraine War

    On Monday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Riyadh, aiming to repair strained ties with the United States and negotiate a favorable resolution to the war with Russia. Following their discussions, Zelensky described the meeting as productive, praising the Saudi leader’s broad grasp of global affairs and support for Ukraine. He emphasized that hearing confidence in Ukraine’s future was particularly meaningful.

    The meeting set the stage for high-stakes talks on Tuesday between Ukrainian and U.S. officials in the oil-rich Gulf state—their first in-person negotiations since the tense exchange between U.S. President Donald Trump and Zelensky at the White House in late February. Holding these discussions in Saudi Arabia, rather than Europe, underscores the kingdom’s growing role in global diplomacy.

    Zelensky and his delegation appeared well received in Riyadh, while bin Salman projected the confidence of a leader eager to shape geopolitical outcomes. His diplomatic finesse, some observers suggest, surpasses Trump’s in navigating complex international negotiations.

    The Strategic Neutrality

    Despite being a key U.S. ally in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia has maintained strong ties with Russia and China. While media narratives often highlight the relationship between former U.S. President Donald Trump and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), a similar connection can be seen between MBS and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The kingdom has deliberately remained neutral, refraining from aligning with Western criticism and sanctions against Russia while keeping open channels of communication with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

    This strategic balancing act allows Saudi Arabia to position itself as both a neutral power and a trusted U.S. partner, making it a preferred venue for high-level diplomatic negotiations. Central to its foreign policy is the ability to engage with all sides, ensuring open channels of communication with parties involved in the conflicts it seeks to mediate.

    Beyond its role in facilitating negotiations to end Russia’s war in Ukraine, Riyadh has also emerged as a key venue for Arab League summits addressing the conflict in Sudan and the future of Palestinians in Gaza.  In 2024, Riyadh facilitated a landmark prisoner exchange between Russia and the United States. The following month, it hosted U.S.-Russia talks, bringing senior officials from Washington and Moscow together to discuss normalizing relations and seeking an end to the war in Ukraine. Speculation is also mounting that Saudi Arabia will host a face-to-face meeting between Trump and Putin—their first since Trump’s return to office earlier this year.

    The Leader of the Muslim World

    Saudi Arabia, once withdrawn from global politics and overshadowed by smaller neighbors, has now stepped forward to assert itself as a regional leader. By expanding its diplomatic influence, the kingdom is positioning itself as the dominant power in the Gulf and the broader Muslim world. With Iran weakened, Turkey struggling to find its footing, and Egypt facing economic turmoil, Saudi Arabia stands as the strongest contender for regional dominance.

  • Saudi Arabia Reclaims Its Regional Clout with Syria’s Embrace

    Saudi Arabia Reclaims Its Regional Clout with Syria’s Embrace

    The Middle East’s power struggle, once a contest between U.S.-led allies and a Russian-backed bloc, now tilts decisively in Washington’s favor. Russia’s decline and Iran’s mounting troubles have given the United States and its staunchest ally, Saudi Arabia, a commanding edge. While Washington and Moscow shaped the broader conflict, the fight on the ground unfolded between Iran and its proxies and a Saudi-led coalition that, despite internal rifts, often included Israel and Turkey. By 2025, the U.S.-Saudi alliance had everything falling into place. Israel crushed Hamas, Lebanon installed a pro-Western president, and Syria—long the region’s geopolitical fault line—found itself under an administration deeply tied to Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Many assumed Turkey would wield the greatest influence over Syria’s new leadership. But when President Al-Shaara made Saudi Arabia his first foreign destination, the message was unmistakable: Riyadh is back, reclaiming its place as the Middle East’s dominant power and the Islamic world’s standard-bearer, after years of ceding ground to Iran.

    Syria’s transitional president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, met with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Riyadh on Sunday, making his first foreign visit since taking office—a move that highlights shifting regional dynamics. Sharaa, who seized power last week after leading the uprising that ousted Iran-backed Bashar al-Assad, now faces the challenge of reintegrating Syria into the Arab fold after nearly 14 years of war. In a written statement, he said the talks focused on humanitarian and economic cooperation, as well as long-term plans in energy, technology, education, and health. Saudi Arabia’s state news agency reported that the discussions also covered strengthening bilateral ties and addressing key regional developments.

    Sharaa and his group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), are widely associated with Sunni Islamic extremism and have been accused of committing harsh acts against Alawites, other Shia groups, and Kurds in Syria. His leadership reflects a strong Sunni identity, reinforced by his personal background—born in Saudi Arabia and having spent part of his childhood there. By making Saudi Arabia his first official visit, Sharaa is signaling that Sunni Islamism is the guiding ideology of his administration and that Riyadh, its traditional power center, is his primary patron.

    Since Assad’s fall, Syria’s new leadership has worked to strengthen ties with both Arab and Western governments, with Saudi Arabia taking the lead in this effort. Riyadh hosted Syria’s new foreign and defense ministers in early January, followed by a high-level meeting with Syrian, Arab, and Western officials later that month. Initially, there was speculation about whether Sharaa’s alignment with Turkey or his connections with Qatar would shape his foreign policy. Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, was the first head of state to visit Damascus after Assad’s ouster in December, suggesting strong ties. However, despite maintaining a balanced relationship with both Ankara and Doha, Sharaa’s priorities now lean toward Saudi Arabia.

    Syria’s renewed ties with Arab leaders signal a sharp break from the years of isolation that followed Assad’s brutal crackdown on the 2011 protests, which led to the country’s suspension from the Arab League for more than a decade.

    For Saudi Arabia, the past four years under Biden marked a period of political and economic turbulence, a stark contrast to the unrestrained confidence of the Trump era. The kingdom found itself navigating a more complicated regional landscape, even losing some influence over traditional satellites like the UAE, which increasingly asserted its own interests and distanced itself from Riyadh’s shadow. Yet, despite these setbacks, the broader currents of international politics have begun to shift in Saudi Arabia’s favor.

    With Trump’s return to power, the U.S. once again needs a reliable Middle Eastern proxy, and no partner fits the role better than Riyadh. Under a renewed Republican administration, Saudi Arabia is poised not just to solidify its dominance in the region but to extend its influence, pulling more countries into its orbit—Syria now among them. After a brief period of recalibration, the kingdom is positioning itself back at the center of global politics, reclaiming its role as a primary powerhouse in the Middle East.

  • With the New President, Can Lebanon Chart a Course Toward the West?

    With the New President, Can Lebanon Chart a Course Toward the West?

    Lebanon, grappling with political, economic, and social unrest, seems to be shifting away from Iran’s influence by electing a new president who is supported by the West and advocates for a stronger Lebanon. The country’s parliament has chosen Army Commander Joseph Aoun as the new president, ending a two-year vacancy and raising hopes for the long-term stability of a ceasefire with Israel. Aoun received 99 out of 128 votes in the parliament’s 13th attempt to select a new head of state, succeeding former President Michel Aoun—who is unrelated to Joseph Aoun—after his departure in October 2022.

    Lebanon’s political system often undermines democratic principles, with a convoluted structure built around a confessionalist framework that allocates key political positions to religious communities through quotas. The system requires the president to be a Maronite Christian, the prime minister to come from the Sunni branch of Islam, and the speaker of Parliament to be from the Shia branch of Islam—reflecting a fragile power-sharing arrangement. Political appointments, from the presidency to parliamentary seats, strictly follow sectarian divisions. The parliament elects the president for a single six-year term, and the president works with lawmakers to appoint the prime minister, adhering to the same quota system. Sectarian interests dominate political parties, complicating governance and eroding democratic values. This flawed structure has led to Lebanon’s mismanagement, resulting in one of the most severe economic and sociological crises in modern history. According to the United Nations, over 80%—or four out of five—of Lebanon’s population now lives in poverty.

    While the presidency in Lebanon holds limited authority, the election of Joseph Aoun hints at a significant shift in the country’s political trajectory. Aoun, who has built strong ties with international powers like Saudi Arabia, France, and the United States during his time as the head of Lebanon’s armed forces, reflects a broader trend of Lebanon leaning westward and distancing itself from Iran’s influence.

    Iran’s sway has been steadily diminishing, a process notably accelerated by the 2022 parliamentary elections. In those elections, the Iran-backed Hezbollah movement and its allies lost their majority in parliament, signaling a notable decline in Tehran’s grip on the country. At the same time, Hezbollah’s Christian ally, the Free Patriotic Movement of outgoing President Michel Aoun, was overtaken as the dominant Christian faction by the Lebanese Forces, a party led by Samir Geagea, who shares close ties with Saudi Arabia.

    The evolution in Lebanon’s politics mirrors the broader regional shifts, particularly Turkey’s efforts to limit Iran’s influence in Syria. Now, with Saudi Arabia—another U.S. ally—on the scene, it seems likely that the Kingdom will play a central role in weakening Iran’s hold over Lebanon, marking a strategic recalibration in the delicate balance of power.

    International leaders, particularly from the West, expressed optimism over the election of Lebanon’s new president, Joseph Aoun. A spokesman for UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres described the election as an important step toward resolving Lebanon’s long-standing political and institutional impasse, which had persisted for over two years due to the presidential vacancy. U.S. President Joe Biden praised Aoun as a suitable leader for the current challenges facing Lebanon.

    Aoun’s primary focus will be on strengthening the Lebanese army, especially in southern Lebanon, where its authority has been challenged since the late 1970s by groups like the Palestine Liberation Organization and Hezbollah. His efforts are expected to be bolstered by assistance from Saudi Arabia, the United States, and France, and Israel is likely to view these developments positively as they improve security along its northern border. After his election, Aoun addressed parliament, emphasizing the state’s right to control the possession of weapons and highlighting the importance of the army in safeguarding Lebanon’s borders.

    The 2004 UN resolution required all armed groups in Lebanon to disarm, but Hezbollah has refused to comply, insisting it is the only force capable of defending Lebanon from Israel. However, he has an opportunity to act as Hezbollah grapples with mounting difficulties, including Iran’s waning regional influence and reduced support from Syria. During Lebanon’s prolonged leadership vacuum, Hezbollah exploited the instability to tighten its grip on southern Lebanon and engage in skirmishes with Israel. By reinforcing the army, Aoun can directly counter Hezbollah’s dominance in the region.

    Hope is on the rise in Lebanon with the election of a new, Western-backed president and the diminishing influence of both Hezbollah and Iran. Now, the country stands at a pivotal moment to rebuild and strengthen its institutions. However, this task will not be simple, as Lebanon’s deep-rooted divisions remain a significant obstacle. Yet, with strong leadership, support from global powers, and a weakened opposition, the Lebanese president is presented with a better opportunity. Though President Aoun faces limitations due to Lebanon’s unique constitution, his six-year term gives him a critical platform to shape the nation’s future. He will also play a vital role in the 2026 parliamentary elections—or potentially in a snap election—that could break the long-standing political deadlock. This moment marks a potential shift toward the West, signaling that Lebanon is indeed charting a new course in its international orientation.

  • The Emirates Strategic Charm Offensive in Africa

    The Emirates Strategic Charm Offensive in Africa

    Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two ambitious nations seeking superpower status, have invested heavily in this pursuit, leveraging their immense wealth. Both have utilized Islam as their principal tool of influence, channeling resources into spreading their interpretations of the faith worldwide. Their efforts have included significant investments in conversion campaigns, mosque construction, and the global promotion of their ideologies. In addition, they have financed a variety of political and extremist groups, strengthening their foothold in numerous countries across the globe. More recently, however, the two states have turned to sports as their latest vector for influence. Qatar’s successful bid to host the FIFA World Cup stands as a remarkable testament to this strategy, while both Qatar and Saudi Arabia have secured high-profile sports deals and events. Beyond these pursuits, the Gulf states continue to invest in myriad ways—enhancing their soft power, cementing their global stature, and attempting, with varying success, to stake their claim as new superpowers.

    However, there is another country in the Gulf region that employs strategies to increase its soft power in a quieter, more effective way: the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Often seen in the shadow of Saudi Arabia, the UAE has pursued its own distinct agenda. Over time, it has crafted a positive image, positioning itself as a force separate from the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Today, the UAE is the most invested and influential country in Africa, gradually establishing itself as a superpower through calculated diplomacy and strategic investments.

    The influence of the United Arab Emirates in Africa has grown unmistakably in recent years, as it has quietly cemented itself as the leading backer of new business ventures across the continent.  With many African nations eager to meet their urgent development needs, the UAE has positioned itself as a key partner, offering substantial investments with a sharp focus on green energy and infrastructure. Between 2019 and 2023, Emirati companies committed $110 billion to various projects, $72 billion of which was dedicated to renewable energy, according to FT Locations, a data firm owned by the Financial Times. This surpasses the combined pledges of the UK, France, and China, whose investments in African infrastructure have waned due to disappointing returns. As many African leaders grow increasingly disillusioned by the underwhelming climate finance commitments from Western governments, the UAE’s persistent investment strategy has earned it a reputation for reliability. At the COP29 conference, while Western nations promised a mere $300 billion annually—far less than the $1.3 trillion requested by developing countries—the UAE’s ongoing contributions stand as a clear and deliberate contrast, signaling not only economic strength, but an increasingly strategic diplomatic footprint across the African continent.

    The UAE’s influence in Africa has grown with subtlety and purpose, particularly in North and East Africa, where it has been an unspoken yet significant actor in the conflicts that have plagued Libya and Sudan. Unlike the international powerhouses of China and India, the UAE has kept a low profile in the global superpower race, often escaping the glaring scrutiny of the Western media or outlets such as Al Jazeera. This relative invisibility, in fact, has worked to the UAE’s advantage. Far from courting attention or controversy, it operates in the shadows, its investments flowing with far less opposition or critique, thus allowing its strategic engagement across Africa to unfold with remarkable ease.

    The UAE’s influence in Africa has grown with quiet determination too, largely through the early efforts of Dubai’s port and airline companies, which were among the first to establish a robust presence on the continent. Emirates, the airline controlled by the Dubai royal family, now services 20 African nations, a footprint that underscores its growing reach. Similarly, DP World, a state-owned giant, has been a fixture in the region since 2006. It currently oversees six ports and is planning to expand its footprint with two more. Abu Dhabi Ports has also made significant inroads, managing Kamsar Port in Guinea since 2013, and recently securing new concessions in Egypt, the Republic of Congo, and Angola. Angola stands out as the only country where both DP World and Abu Dhabi Ports are active. The UAE has not been swayed from its commitment to East Africa, but rather is seeking to extend its influence and connectivity toward the Americas, particularly Latin America.

    The UAE’s economic interests are equally broad, as Emirati firms diversify investments across sectors like agriculture and telecoms. Notably, since 2022, Dubai royal Sheikh Ahmed Dalmook al-Maktoum has brokered deals to sell carbon credits from vast forests in several African nations—spanning 20% of Zimbabwe, 10% of Liberia, 10% of Zambia, and 8% of Tanzania. The UAE’s investments are shaping a new kind of geopolitical engagement—strategic, expansive, and far-reaching, yet executed largely beneath the radar.

    Emirati investments are reshaping long standing power dynamics in the mining sector too. One of the more surprising moves came when International Resource Holdings (IRH), a company controlled by Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed, Abu Dhabi’s national security adviser, secured a $1.1 billion deal to acquire a 51% stake in Zambia’s Mopani Copper Mines. The announcement caught many off guard, as the shortlist of potential investors had long been expected to feature China’s Zijin Mining and South Africa’s Sibanye Stillwater. This shift occurred after Zambia’s state-run mining company, ZCCM, took over the ailing Mopani Copper Mines from Glencore in 2021, a transaction weighed down by crippling debt and the need for a fresh infusion of capital. Despite Sheikh Tahnoon’s company having no prior mining experience, the deal ultimately won over Zambian officials. IRH’s promise to invest heavily in the mine while maintaining jobs, coupled with its recruitment of world-class expertise, proved a compelling combination that outweighed conventional expectations. The transaction not only symbolized the UAE’s growing role in the sector, but also reflected a shift in how capital from the Gulf is infiltrating industries long dominated by larger, more established players. And there is the growing amount of illegally smuggled gold from African countries to Dubai. Research by the NGO Swissaid revealed a significant discrepancy between official exports from African nations to Dubai and the emirate’s actual imports. From 2012 to 2022, this difference amounted to 2,569 tons of gold, valued at an astonishing $115.3 billion. This surge in illicit gold trade further exemplifies the UAE’s influence in Africa.

    There is little doubt that pouring money into sporting events like the World Cup has granted Saudi Arabia and Qatar significant attention and influence, particularly within global sporting bodies. This is a form of influence, yes, but one rooted in wealth rather than subtlety. What sets the UAE apart is how its investments have drawn politicians, not only to its coffers, but also closer to its vision for regional and global dominance. In Africa, it can be argued that UAE influence is more refined and effective than that of its neighbors, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The latter maintains control over some of the most conservative Islamic nations, but it is the UAE’s diverse portfolio—spanning trade, infrastructure, and energy—that has given it the upper hand.

    While investment from traditional Western powers such as the United States and Europe has dwindled, often discouraged by the outspoken stances of African leaders, and the investments from China, India, and Russia have similarly faltered amid American political concerns, a perfect opening has emerged for the UAE. With fewer competitors and a clearer path forward, the UAE has seized the opportunity. As it continues to amplify its investments and diplomatic strategies, the Emirates have become arguably the most influential Gulf state in Africa, marking a significant shift in the region’s geopolitical landscape.

  • Why Is Saudi Arabia Concerned About the Houthis Attack on Israel?

    Why Is Saudi Arabia Concerned About the Houthis Attack on Israel?

    Pro-Islamic and pro-Palestinian social media accounts across various platforms and countries are celebrating the Houthi militants claim of breaching Israel’s missile defense system and reaching central Israel, near Tel Aviv, with a modern ballistic missile. The reported strike on September 15th caused no casualties but captured headlines due to its strategic significance. A militant group from Yemen launched the missile over Saudi Arabia, breaching Israel’s renowned defense system and reaching the vicinity of Tel Aviv. For the Houthis, this was a notable achievement in their “Holy War”, one Israel likely did not anticipate. However, this development has heightened tensions in Saudi Arabia, the leading nation in the Islamic world and home to its most sacred sites. Saudi Arabia, already engaged in conflict with the Houthis, now faces an increasing security risk. The Houthis striking capabilities and resilience represent a significant threat to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

    Saudi Arabia, a Sunni-majority Islamic nation that supports Yemen’s official government in its battle against the Shia-majority Houthis, believes that Iran, a Shia power, has been supplying arms to the group and is convinced that the recent strikes were carried out with Iran’s assistance, despite the Houthis claiming they used homemade weapons. The Sunni-Shia conflict has deep historical roots, spanning centuries of violence and mutual hostility, much like the long-standing conflict between Muslims and Jews. Now, Saudi Arabia views the recent Houthi attacks as a growing threat to its own security. The Houthis advanced capabilities, including their weapons and technology, have surprised many observers. Additionally, the group’s involvement in attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea has significantly reduced traffic on this crucial route, leading to increased maritime transport costs and disruptions to the global economy by affecting the Suez Canal. Given these impacts, Saudi Arabia presented Houthis as not just a regional threat, but a global one. 

    In Sana’a, the capital of Yemen and a Houthi stronghold where the rebel group coordinates its attacks on shipping, the leadership celebrated Sunday’s missile strike on Israel, which landed in an open area near Ben Gurion International Airport. They hailed the strike as a breakthrough, attributing it to the efforts of Yemeni technicians, and vowed that more attacks would follow. Prior to the strike, the Houthis had issued warnings of an impending assault on Israel. Previous missile attacks by the group had failed to penetrate deep into Israeli airspace, with one missile in March landing in an open area near the Red Sea port of Eilat. In July, an Iranian-made drone attack on Tel Aviv killed one person and wounded ten others. During Sunday’s strike, Israel activated its Arrow and Iron Dome defense systems, though it remains unclear whether any of the interception attempts were successful.

    Saudi Arabia now faces an urgent need to take stronger action against the Houthis, as the threat they pose could be as significant to the kingdom as it is to Israel, if not greater. A potential attack on Saudi territory is a growing concern, especially given previous incidents. The kingdom also wants to prevent the Houthis from gaining further support and enhancing their reputation for bravery in the name of Islam. If the Houthis gain more support in Yemen, the Saudi-backed official government could be in jeopardy. However, before launching any strikes, Saudi Arabia is likely to seek U.S. approval, and more military operations are anticipated. Saudi leaders are calling for a more robust approach than mere pinprick bombings to effectively sever the Houthis supply lines.

    Saudi Arabia has also pointed to Iran’s interference in Arab nations such as Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Palestine, expressing disappointment that Tehran has failed to uphold the diplomatic agreement it reached with Saudi Arabia in China two years ago. The kingdom had hoped Iran would take a more proactive role in fostering regional stability and resolving disputes, not just with Saudi Arabia but across the broader region. However, the escalating tensions are likely to exacerbate the Middle East crisis, potentially drawing in additional parties, including the U.S. and the U.K. The Houthis are likely to receive more support, and Saudi Arabia may bear higher costs than Israel in this situation.

  • Why Doesn’t the Islamic World Have a Superpower to Challenge Israel?

    Why Doesn’t the Islamic World Have a Superpower to Challenge Israel?

    The conflict between Muslims and Jews has historical roots extending over centuries, primarily driven by religious differences rather than just territorial disputes. This is why the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict attracts worldwide attention and involves Muslims and Jews globally. Social media is abuzz with propaganda from both sides. However, on the ground, Israel has a significant advantage as a sovereign state with advanced project management, while Hamas, which governs Gaza and initiated the fresh wave of conflict with terrorist attacks in Israel, finds itself on the defensive with only weakened support from Iran. The conflict appears to be heavily skewed in favor of one side, with the Hamas side suffering greatly.

    In terms of international politics, Israel receives support from superpowers like the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, while countries like Russia, China, and India maintain a more neutral stance. This support provides Israel with a substantial advantage. On the other hand, Hamas and Gaza mainly receive backing from Iran, whose capabilities are in question. This raises the question: why are there no superpowers in the Arab or Muslim world capable of challenging Israel?

    The answer lies in U.S. supremacy in a unipolar world. Although there is widespread anger and calls for solidarity with Hamas across the Islamic world, which stretches from Morocco to Indonesia, these are largely limited to public statements. This situation represents a clear victory for U.S. diplomacy, which has either aligned powerful countries with U.S. interests or severely weakened others. A powerful or superpower country typically has strong leadership, economic influence, political influence, strong international alliances, and a strong military, but few countries in the Islamic world possess all these features combined. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Turkey are considered powerful countries within the Islamic world today, but they are all aligned with the United States. Turkey is a NATO member with tight ties to the U.S., while Saudi Arabia and the UAE are highly reliant on business with the U.S., and their leadership maintains strong connections with U.S. diplomats. They also have military defense pacts with the U.S. Qatar, one of the wealthiest Islamic countries, also maintains a close relationship with the U.S. Despite their connections with Islamist leaders and organizations, and their roles in mediating with groups like Hamas and the Taliban.

    All the countries that previously challenged Israel are now weakened and humbled by U.S. strategies and diplomacy. Egypt, home to the largest army in the Middle East and the leader of last century’s Arab movements against Israel, along with Libya, Iraq, and Syria – countries that once challenged Israel—have lost the leadership capable of making such decisions. They are experiencing severe economic decline and face significant domestic challenges. Now, it seems that the Islamic Republic of Iran is currently the only major power from the Muslim world still challenging Israel. However, Iran has also been economically weakened by strong U.S. sanctions and faces serious domestic issues. Iran has been stunned and humbled by Israel through severe attacks. While Iran has vowed revenge, it has not taken any significant actions that are visibly effective. Nonetheless, Iran has not completely withdrawn from its ideological commitment to opposing Israel, unlike other states. Iran continues to fund organizations fighting against Israel, and Qatar is also reported to be providing support. Despite these efforts, no one is currently able to effectively challenge Israel, highlighting the weakness of the Islamic world outside of its elaborate organizations.

    As Israel is not ready for a truce, it seems likely that Gaza will be systematically annexed by Israel. This outcome appears inevitable. The stance of Islamic countries, which avoids a regional war, may bring peace, but it is clear that the position of Muslim governments does not reflect the sentiment of their populations. This could lead to a revival of terrorist organizations like ISIS in the Islamic world, which would bring more challenges in the region.

  • Why Is GCC Not Evolving Like The European Union?

    Why Is GCC Not Evolving Like The European Union?

    While countries rapidly raise tariffs and sanctions, markets have become even more valuable. Forming a stable market with shared interests is seen as the solution to these increasing trade wars. The European Union, with its single market formed by the economic union, serves as a role model even in the most challenging times for international trade. Forming unified markets can bind nations together and provide more opportunities. This is evident in the growing desire to join the European Union, which continues to expand into new regions, leading them all towards economic prosperity. Together, they can compete with economic giants with massive markets like the United States and China. By taking the European Union as a model, many economic cooperation are evolving now. The Gulf countries, who formed the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), are among them. Even though they started decades ago and began implementing measures like a single visa and free border, they are still far away from forming a single market and creating a strong body like the European Union.

    Challenges make countries cooperate. After the disastrous World War and the subsequent Cold War, Europe collapsed, and outsiders became prominent decision-makers in the region. To overcome these challenges, the long-time rivals of Europe began considering European cooperation by raising European identity and past European glory; eventually, this move led to the formation of the European Union and the Single European Market. They grew economically together and have now become a powerful entity capable of negotiations. The European Union, the multinational economic and political union comprising 27 European member states and is further expanding to more countries. The cooperation started with the Customs Union and then grew to establish a strong internal single market following a standardized legal framework and legislation applicable to member states. The States already joined, and Any state wishing to join the EU must agree to its policies, which ensure the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital within this “Pan-modern State”. Consequently, passport controls have been abolished at the borders within the EU. Among the European member states, twenty have formed a central bank and adopted a single currency, the Euro, which is one of the most valuable currencies now. While the European Union is progressing in economic terms, they are also developing foreign and security policies and agreements that benefit all member states. The EU maintains permanent diplomatic missions worldwide and has representatives in key organizations such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and groups like the G7 and G20.With increasing influence and acceptability, many consider the European Union a superpower, demonstrating lobbying capacity through their combined strength. 

    Some Arab think tanks frequently accused the EU, as a Christian Union reminiscent of Medieval Europe who fought with Muslim countries, citing the delayed entry of Turkey and Albania despite them applying years ago. They frequently promote the establishment of a counter-Arab union that would grow into a strong economic union and possibly divide the wealth of nations like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates with less wealthy surrounding Arab states.  In the same way that France and Germany help the poorer European nations. Many experts think that such a union may oppose the diverse interests of the area  and create an Islamic superpower.  The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a regional political and economic union formed in 1981, comprises Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, and Kuwait. It is the closest multinational intergovernmental body resembling the EU and one of the first to mimic it. Discussions have taken place regarding the potential future membership of Jordan, Morocco, and Yemen. The GCC could further expand to include many Islamic countries in Asia and Africa. While the GCC has not advanced as cohesively as the EU, in earlier times, Saudi Arabia proposed transforming the GCC into a Gulf Union similar to the European Union, with tighter economic, political, and military coordination. However, objections arose from other countries due to their disapproval of leadership. And all member countries prioritized construction projects that stunning the world and hosting the glamorous events over regional interests. It’s evident that the leaders hindered the evolution of the GCC akin to the EU. While a Customs Union was established in January 2003, it has yet to thrive like the EU’s single market. The idea of a common currency also faltered due to conflicts of interest. UAE, Oman announced it would not meet the target date for a common currency, Due to the decision to locate the central bank for the monetary union in Riyadh instead of the UAE. If it was realized, the GCC monetary union would rank as the second-largest supranational monetary union in the world by GDP. It’s sure the GCC has high potential like the EU. But there are not many politicians capable in GCC.

    The Gulf region boasts some of the fastest-growing economies in the world and the highest GDP per capita. This growth is largely due to a surge in oil and natural gas revenues, combined with a construction and investment boom, and an increase in the hospitality business, all supported by decades of accumulated petroleum wealth. While the Middle East faces numerous issues, ranging from the Palestine conflict to increasing foreign influences, the idea of more cooperation between the countries evolving as a European Union-like body is indeed plausible for the GCC. However, the countries do not appear inclined to set aside individual interests in favor of collective growth. If the GCC formed an Arabian superpower, capable of successfully intervening in Middle Eastern issues, including the Palestine conflict, but the lack of willingness to cooperate remains a curse for Arab countries, often relegating them to mere satellites of powerful countries.

  • Saudi Arabia’s Strategic Approach to Gaza Challenges

    Saudi Arabia’s Strategic Approach to Gaza Challenges

    Following Israel, Saudi Arabia stands as the United States’ foremost ally in the Middle East. The connection between the kingdom and Washington is robust and intimate, with both entities walking hand in hand towards shared goals. However, Saudi Arabia, the land of Mohammed, the site of Mecca and Medina, a country that still upholds strict Sharia law and one of the largest funders of Islamist organizations always says about a commitment to Palestine. The question arises: How long can they continue to turn their face against their fellow Muslim brothers in Gaza? The issue in Palestine has never been solely between Palestine and Israel, two countries, but has always been perceived as a conflict between Muslims and Jews, thus garnering global attention. Saudi Arabia, considering itself as the leader of Muslims, has faced significant criticism for its inaction regarding Palestine. However, recent developments suggest that Saudi Arabia is strategically moving to gain more benefits from the United States by staying with them in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

    Saudi Arabia still doesn’t have a formal relationship with Israel, even though the United States is the primary ally of both Saudi Arabia and Israel. Saudi Arabia cooperated with the Arab League against Israel in the initial years of the Arab-Israeli conflicts. However, they played only minor roles in the series of wars. Even though Hamas and Palestine maintain stronger ties to Saudi Arabia’s rivals, Iran and Qatar, Saudi Arabia did not try to publicly align with Israel, not even during the Trump administration when Saudi Arabia’s allies like the UAE and Bahrain established formal ties with Israel. However, business between them gained momentum as Saudi Arabia’s allies established diplomatic relations with Israel. But all the progress was lost when Hamas attacked Israel on October 7th of last year. The Hamas attack, Israel’s retaliation, and perceived poor administration from the US under Biden have brought the Israel-Saudi Arabia relationship to a standstill. Some even doubt if the Hamas attack on Israel was orchestrated by Iran and Russia to halt Israel-Saudi Arabia talks. If an axis develops among the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, other players will be thrown out of the scenario. However, now there is widespread anger among the Muslim population against Israel, including in Saudi Arabia. Due to strict laws, protests are unlikely, yet criticism is high as the Saudi government hasn’t intervened. Meanwhile, Iran and Turkey are using the situation to assert their roles as advocates for Islam and leaders of the Muslim world.

    Saudi Arabia is actually strategically maneuvering its position. The kingdom is presently focused on diminishing its reliance on Israel while leveraging the circumstances to secure more favorable terms with the United States. Despite encountering criticism from certain segments of the Muslim world, Saudi Arabia perceives this strategy as advantageous. With no ceasefire in Gaza and strong opposition from Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israeli government to a Palestinian state, the Saudis are now pushing for a more streamlined alternative. Which is excluding Israel from the deals with the United States. This alternative involves bilateral defense pacts, US assistance in developing Saudi Arabia’s civil nuclear energy sector, and significant collaboration in emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence. Under Riyadh’s proposal, these agreements would not require Israel’s approval. The United States is cautious about involving Israel at this stage, fearing that Saudi Arabia might pivot towards alignment with China or Russia, which could undermine US dominance in the region and have significant economic repercussions. While the exclusion of Israel from these agreements will impact Israel, it is expected that Israeli businesses will shift to the US. A formal offer would be extended to Israel, proposing Saudi normalization, a significant objective in Israeli foreign policy, in exchange for definitive steps towards establishing a Palestinian state encompassing Gaza and the West Bank. The US aimed for this offer to become a focal point in Israeli politics, particularly during elections following the potential collapse of the Netanyahu government. 

    Saudi Arabia, one of the powerhouse of the Middle East,  ranks as the world’s second-largest oil producer after the United States and the second-largest GDP in the Middle East, trailing only Turkey. They are in an effort to transition from strict Islamic laws to a more economy-oriented perspective involving substantial investments in media, tourism, and sports. Furthermore, they aspire to host prestigious global events such as the FIFA World Cup and Olympics on their soil, underscoring their prioritizations. The support of the United States will ensure that Saudi Arabia can achieve this endeavor. However, a less assertive stance on the Gaza situation has the potential to tarnish Saudi Arabia’s reputation as the leader of Islamic states. On the other hand, it aids the United States in intensifying efforts to bolster bilateral trade, enhance security partnerships, and promote technological advancements, including the establishment of a uranium processing plant. Concerns regarding the kingdom’s human rights record and women’s rights issues, which no longer seem to trouble the United States. Instead, they aim to maintain a close alliance with Saudi Arabia, And that Saudi Arabia is keenly aware of.

  • At What Cost? Saudi Arabia’s World Cup Journey Puts Human Rights on the Line

    At What Cost? Saudi Arabia’s World Cup Journey Puts Human Rights on the Line

    FIFA, the governing body of football, stands on the verge of selecting Saudi Arabia as the host nation for the 2034 World Cup. Hosting the FIFA World Cup grants unparalleled visibility and prestige to the chosen country, making it a highly coveted achievement for Saudi Arabia to showcase itself to the world stage. However, FIFA’s decision to potentially award hosting rights to Saudi Arabia has sparked controversy, given the organization’s frequent accusations of corruption and Saudi Arabia’s poor human rights record. The previous selection of Qatar as a host, despite its lack of significant football history and its issues with labor and human rights, also raised skepticism before. And before Qatar it was Russia. Now, with Saudi Arabia aspiring to host the 2034 tournament. This has prompted concern among human rights advocates, who fear that Saudi Arabia may be attempting to use the World Cup as a means of diverting attention from its human rights violations through a practice known as “Sportswashing”, portraying a positive image to the world while ignoring underlying issues.

    The Guardian, the center-left British media outlet, has already published a series featuring how migrant workers are being used or scammed in the name of the World Cup in Saudi Arabia. Qatar serves as a precedent example; the stadiums built without basic security or regard for the value of people’s lives host the World Cup. Many lives have been lost for the World Cup, and many people have been abused by the peculiar visa scheme Qatar offers for workers. The Saudi Arabian World Cup is expected to be a second version of Qatar.

    Saudi Arabia’s human rights record is dismal. Despite limited efforts to fortify its human rights framework, the nation receives a dismal score of eight out of 100 in the widely recognized Freedom in the World report, issued by Freedom House, which evaluates political rights and civil freedoms. The law mandates that wives must submit to their husbands in a manner considered “Reasonable”, and any disrespect toward the government can result in severe punishments. Moreover, human rights organizations are prohibited from operating in Saudi Arabia.

    There is widespread skepticism regarding FIFA’s ability to fulfill its human rights obligations, even if they are strictly limited to World Cup-related projects. Nonetheless, there is still an opportunity for potential action. As part of its bid, Saudi Arabia for the 2034 World Cup must provide an impartial evaluation of human rights conditions in the nation to FIFA by this summer. “Sustainability and Human Rights” constitute one of the six selection criteria, and FIFA is obligated to assess human rights risks as part of the selection process.

    FIFA has committed to ensuring the protection of worker’s rights and their safety as part of its efforts to uphold human rights. Saudi Arabia stands out for having the poorest labor conditions among Gulf nations. There is Similar conditions in Qatar too. However, Saudi Arabia presents its own unique challenges. Recent advancements in labor rights are highlighted by Saudi authorities, including the abolition of the kafala system, which previously tied migrant workers to their employers, and the implementation of regulations governing recruitment. Workers are now permitted to join legitimate independent trade unions, allowing them to file complaints without fear of prosecution. Additionally, the absconding law has been eliminated, ensuring that it is no longer considered a crime for workers to leave their employment.

    Perhaps these fears are only held by certain left-wing groups, human rights organizations, and newspapers. Maybe these reports come from individuals who seek to tarnish Saudi Arabia’s reputation. Perhaps they come from people in Bangladesh and Pakistan who are willing to sacrifice their lives to obtain significant financial gain that can support their large families. However, we all know that FIFA is playing a double game by selecting these hosts. While they promote progressive values, they prioritize countries’ financial interests over these values. Or we can believe that FIFA is on a mission to slightly improve human rights in the countries where it completely lacks.

  • UN’s Surprise Selection: Saudi Arabia to Head Women’s Rights Commission

    UN’s Surprise Selection: Saudi Arabia to Head Women’s Rights Commission

    It is indeed true that under the leadership of Mohammed bin Salman, there have been some advancements in women’s rights in Saudi Arabia. Women are now allowed to drive vehicles independently, and they can enter public spaces without wearing head coverings. However, despite these seemingly progressive decisions, the irony remains glaring. Saudi Arabia, notorious for its oppressive anti-women laws, has been chosen to lead the UN Commission on the Status of Women uncontested. This decision has drawn condemnation from human rights organizations due to the kingdom’s abysmal track record on women’s rights.

    Abdulaziz Alwasil, the Saudi ambassador to the UN, was unanimously elected as the chair of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) during its annual meeting in New York. With no opposing candidates and no dissent among the attendees, Alwasil’s appointment was met with approval from the group of Asia-Pacific states on the commission. When Antonio Manuel Lagdameo, the outgoing chair and Filipino envoy to the UN, sought objections from the 45 members present, the chamber remained silent, prompting Lagdameo to declare, “I hear no objection. It is so decided”.

    Traditionally, a country holds the chairmanship for two years; however, pressure from other members of the Asia group led the Philippines to split its tenure and pass the position to another country after just one year. While Bangladesh was initially expected to assume the role, Saudi Arabia intervened late in the process and lobbied for the chairmanship, widely interpreted as an effort to enhance the kingdom’s reputation.

    However, human rights advocates, who do not receive funding from Arab sources, were quick to highlight the irony of the Commission on the Status of Women being led by a country where the disparity between men’s and women’s rights, even on paper, is so pronounced.

    In Saudi Arabia, women are still obligated to seek approval from a male guardian before marrying, and wives are anticipated to adhere to their husbands’ directives in a “Reasonable Manner”. The provision of financial assistance from husbands is conditional upon the wife’s adherence, and neglecting certain obligations, such as declining sexual relations or not residing in the marital home without a “Legitimate Excuse”, may lead to the cessation of support.

    These laws provide insight into the restrictive nature of Saudi Arabia’s legal system, which is grounded in Sharia law and often viewed as detrimental to women’s rights in more progressive societies. While some Muslim women may assert that Sharia law ensures their safety and satisfaction, those who challenge its tenets may face severe consequences from authorities. Indeed, there have been numerous cases of women seeking asylum simply for expressing dissenting views on social media platforms.

    Last year, UN Women, the UN’s agency for gender equality, reported a worsening of gender disparities worldwide, citing examples from Afghanistan, China, Poland, the United States, and beyond. The organization projected that it could require 286 years to eliminate the global gender gaps in legal protections for women and girls. Moreover, many are concerned about the increasing trend of rolling back women’s rights, even in developing countries, which adds to the discomfort surrounding the decision to appoint Saudi Arabia.

    Sherine Tadros, the head of Amnesty International’s New York office, emphasized that Saudi Arabia will assume the chair next year, coinciding with the 30th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration, a significant framework for advancing women’s rights globally. “Whoever holds the chair, which is currently Saudi Arabia, holds a pivotal position to shape the planning, decisions, assessments, and forward-looking initiatives in a crucial year for the commission”, Tadros stated. “While Saudi Arabia is now leading, its own track record on women’s rights falls far short of the commission’s mandate”.

    Human Rights Watch’s (HRW) UN director, Louis Charbonneau, criticized the choice as well, saying, “A nation that jails its women for standing up for their rights has no business heading the UN’s main platform for gender equality and women’s rights. The Saudi authorities ought to show that this classification was not wholly unjustified by freeing all incarcerated advocates for women’s rights, doing away with male guardianship, and guaranteeing women’s total equality with men”. 

    Despite the ineffectiveness of these UN-based organizations and forums, it is alarming that nations have not expressed concern or opposition to Saudi Arabia’s bid. This lack of action is not limited to the UN; even in highly prominent events such as the bidding for the 2034 FIFA World Cup, there has been no challenge to Saudi Arabia’s bid, despite criticism of the country’s mistreatment of labor rights. Logic of some selections is very illogical, and will lead to many doubts, like Qatar’s selection for running the World cup football. Money decides the winner, as always. And that brings the Hope Taliban Ruling Afghanistan will not be assigned in the future.