The American Deception Toward the Arabs: From Hegemony to Trump’s Peace Plan
Since the 1920s, Arab–American relations have been one of the most significant aspects of international politics in the Arab world. The United States has long raised the banners of freedom, human rights, and democracy, yet in practice it has pursued policies rooted in domination, control, and hegemony — using its economic, military, and diplomatic tools to preserve its vital interests. This clear contradiction between words and deeds has produced what can only be described as a “strategic deception toward the Arabs,” a policy that, in my view, is deeply embedded in the structure of American foreign policy, regardless of the changing administrations, roles, or appearances.
The Early 20th Century: Promises and Double Standards
Britain and France, with American consultation, promised the Arabs a unified Arab kingdom in exchange for their support during World War I against the Ottoman Empire. Indeed, some Arabs — especially those who were given that promise — sided with the Allies. Yet, at the same time, Britain, France, and their allies, including the U.S., were negotiating how to divide the spoils of the “sick man” — the Ottoman Empire. They conspired to fragment the Arab world into divided states with artificial borders and to grant Palestine as a national homeland for the Jews, through the infamous Sykes–Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration.
The first created weak, divided states; the second produced a so-called Jewish state, supported by the West. Thus, there was no “unified Arab kingdom” as promised — no sovereignty, no independence, but instead torn-apart countries with artificial boundaries, and an occupied Arab land — Palestine — and a plundered sacred site — Jerusalem.
The 1950s–1960s: The Illusion of Liberation
In the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. portrayed itself as an anti-colonial power supporting independence and liberation. In practice, however, it sought to replace British and French influence with its own hegemony. Washington went so far as to back several military coups against nationalist and independent liberation movements, as seen in Iran and later in some Arab countries.
While it championed the slogan of “the right of peoples to self-determination,” it opposed any attempt to nationalize resources or to build an independent foreign policy — as happened in Egypt, Iraq, and elsewhere — and actively worked to destroy any pan-Arab unity projects.
The U.S. has always viewed Arab unity or political and economic independence as a threat to its national interests. As President Carter once declared, “Any threat to Arab oil is a threat to American national security.” Consequently, Washington focused on dismantling Arab alliances through separate agreements — making it both dominant and indispensable.
Oil for Protection and Regime Survival
When the U.S. realized that Arab states were incapable of achieving sovereignty — or even thinking collectively as one Arab world — it quickly forged alliances with Arab regimes, especially oil-rich ones, in exchange for military and political protection. This policy ensured the survival of those regimes and the continuous flow of oil in ways that served American interests, while binding those regimes to Washington’s political red lines.
At the same time, the U.S. worked to control these regimes’ militaries and equipment in alignment with its own strategic goals. Over the decades, numerous attacks occurred on U.S.-protected Arab states — the latest (but not the last) being the assault on Saudi Aramco’s oil facilities and the Israeli aggression against Qatar — and yet the U.S. failed to defend its allies as promised. In many cases, American military equipment, such as radars and missile defense systems, were either inoperative or ineffective (according to military experts), suggesting that these systems can be disabled if they ever act against U.S. interests.
Washington also sought to contain or weaken Arab military power through separate peace agreements — notably Egypt’s Camp David Accord (1978) and Jordan’s Wadi Araba Treaty (1994) — which effectively removed them from the Arab–Israeli confrontation, thereby weakening the collective Arab position.
From the Gulf War to the “Creative Chaos” Doctrine
By the early 1990s, the U.S. had become the unrivaled power in the region. It exploited Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 to form an international coalition under its leadership, ensuring a permanent military presence in the Arab world. What appeared to be a “liberation alliance” was, in reality, the blueprint for a new era of absolute American dominance in the region.
Despite promising stability, institution-building, and “freedom and democracy,” the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 under the false pretext of weapons of mass destruction. It supported authoritarian regimes, violated international law, and destroyed Iraq’s state institutions — plunging the country, and the wider region, into sectarian, political, and security chaos. This was part of a broader strategy aimed at weakening strong Arab states and transforming them into fragmented, conflict-ridden entities.
The Arab Spring: Reconstructing Hegemony
In 2011, massive popular uprisings erupted across the Arab world. The U.S. quickly adopted the rhetoric of supporting “democratic transition” and popular revolutions, but soon retreated when this popular wave began to threaten its direct interests. It allowed certain regimes to fall while supporting others to remain or return — depending on how each case aligned with American and Israeli agendas. Another cycle of contradiction and deception.
From the “Deal of the Century” to Trump’s Peace Plan
With the arrival of the Trump administration in 2017, American deception became more blatant, based on an openly realist “facts on the ground” approach. The so-called “Deal of the Century” was marketed as a peace plan, but in essence it aimed to liquidate the Palestinian cause — pushing as many Arab states as possible toward normalization with Israel, thereby further weakening the Arab position while empowering Israel to expand its regional influence.
Today, with Trump’s return to office, the same deceptive strategy has resurfaced under a new label — another so-called peace plan — amid the ongoing tragedy and genocidal war in Gaza. While it may outwardly promise to end the bloodshed, rebuild Gaza, and restore stability, history shows that every U.S. “peace plan” conceals another layer of manipulation. If implemented, it would likely result in the following:
- Israel’s gradual reintegration into the international community, escaping its current isolation and gaining greater regional freedom of action.
- Acceleration of normalization, with more Arab states — potentially including Saudi Arabia — joining the process.
- Further weakening of the Arab position and the effective liquidation of what remains of the Palestinian cause.
- Formal annexation of the West Bank and Jerusalem, while Gaza is economically isolated and transformed into a demilitarized, dependent enclave — possibly branded as a “Palestinian state” stripped of sovereignty, national identity, or Islamic connection.
Conclusion
For decades, U.S. policy toward the Arabs has not been a series of mistakes or misunderstandings but a comprehensive strategic project of domination, grounded in systematic deception, designed to keep Israel strong, Arab states weak and dependent, and Arab peoples incapable of collective action.
While America has succeeded in imposing its frameworks for years, the resilience of Gaza and its continued resistance to colonial projects reflect the enduring awareness of the Arab people and their rejection of deception. The Palestinian cause and its resistance will persist as long as the occupation endures — and they will remain the true moral, political, and human benchmark that exposes the realities behind shifting alliances, changing faces, and rebalanced powers.
