US support for ...
Page 1
The high sensitivity of the reactions suggests that the statements have been read as a “plausible future scenario,” rather than as a media sideshow. In fact, the main concern is that what is being raised rhetorically today may be consolidated as a reality on the ground tomorrow.
What impact could such positions have on the normalization process between some Arab countries and Israel? Could they slow down or even halt such diplomatic trends?
The normalization process is highly dependent on the perceptual environment of public opinion. Such remarks increase the political cost of normalization for Arab governments and constrain their maneuvering space. Even countries that have security and economic interests in cooperation with Israel may find themselves compelled to slow the process or place it on hold. Normalization advances when Israel is seen as a controllable and predictable actor, not as one that, backed by the United States, normalizes expansionist horizons.
At a time when regional crises from Gaza to the Red Sea continue, what impact will such rhetoric have on tension levels and the likelihood of new alliances emerging in the region?
Against the backdrop of active crises from Gaza to the Red Sea, these remarks effectively contribute to rising tensions. They reinforce the narrative of actors opposed to the United States and Israel and create space for new, even if temporary and tactical, forms of convergence. Under such conditions, the likelihood of alliances based on “deterring a common threat” increases. These alliances may not be formal, but they can complicate the regional balance and raise its costs in practice. From a realist perspective, such rhetoric does not reduce tensions; rather, it fuels an accumulation of mistrust and adds to the acceleration of hard-power competition in the region.