Bought and Controlled: How U.S.-Backed Arab Leaders Could Be Forced to Comply with Trump’s Gaza Takeover Plan
From monarchs on Washington’s payroll to Gulf rulers propped up by American military bases, the Arab world’s leadership isn’t as independent as it seems—when the U.S. demands compliance, history shows
In recent developments, former President Donald Trump has proposed a controversial plan for the Gaza Strip, suggesting that the United States take control of the territory, relocate its over two million Palestinian residents to neighboring Arab countries, and redevelop Gaza into a prosperous area. This proposal has raised significant questions about the potential compliance of Arab nations, many of whose leaderships are closely tied to U.S. support.
Egypt: A Pillar of U.S. Foreign Aid
Egypt has been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign aid since the 1979 Camp David Accords. Annually, Egypt receives approximately $1.3 billion in military assistance from the United States. This aid bolsters Egypt’s military capabilities and reinforces its strategic partnership with Washington. In September 2024, the Biden administration approved the full $1.3 billion in military aid to Egypt, overriding human rights conditions—a move that underscores the geopolitical importance of the U.S.-Egypt relationship.
Given this substantial support, Egypt’s economy and military are deeply intertwined with U.S. interests. However, President Trump’s recent suggestion to resettle Gazan residents in Egypt has been met with firm resistance from Cairo. Egyptian officials argue that accepting a large influx of Palestinian refugees could destabilize the nation, both economically and politically. Despite the leverage that U.S. aid provides, Egypt has maintained its opposition to the plan, indicating that certain national security concerns outweigh financial considerations.
Jordan: Balancing Aid and Sovereignty
Jordan, under the leadership of King Abdullah II, has also been a significant recipient of U.S. aid. In 2022, the U.S. and Jordan signed a memorandum of understanding, under which Washington provides $1.45 billion in annual financial aid to the kingdom from 2023 to 2029. This aid supports various sectors, including development projects, healthcare, education, and military training, underscoring the depth of U.S.-Jordan relations.
Despite this support, King Abdullah has firmly rejected Trump’s Gaza resettlement proposal. Jordanian officials fear that absorbing a large number of Palestinians would disrupt the country’s demographic balance and potentially incite internal unrest. The kingdom’s stance highlights the complex interplay between reliance on U.S. aid and the imperative to maintain national stability and sovereignty.
Saudi Arabia: Strategic Alliances and Leadership Dynamics
Saudi Arabia’s relationship with the United States has been strategically significant since the 1940s, primarily due to the kingdom’s vast oil reserves and geopolitical importance. The U.S. has historically provided Saudi Arabia with military support and advanced weaponry, bolstering the monarchy’s security and regional dominance.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s rise to power in 2017 was marked by close ties with the U.S., particularly during the Trump administration. Reports suggest that the U.S. supported his ascension, with President Trump reportedly stating, “We’ve put our man on top.” MBS’s appointment as crown prince was a departure from traditional succession lines, indicating significant external influence in the kingdom’s internal affairs.
Despite this close relationship, Saudi Arabia has publicly rejected the idea of relocating Palestinians from Gaza. The kingdom emphasizes the importance of a two-state solution and has expressed concerns that forced resettlement would undermine Palestinian statehood aspirations. This stance illustrates that even closely allied nations may diverge from U.S. proposals when national and regional interests are at stake.
The Gulf States: Security Dependencies and Policy Alignments
Other Gulf states, including the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, maintain security arrangements heavily reliant on U.S. military presence. The UAE, for instance, hosts U.S. military bases and has deep military ties with Washington. Similarly, Qatar is home to the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East. These relationships have historically aligned the foreign policies of these nations with U.S. strategic interests.
However, in response to Trump’s Gaza proposal, the UAE has emphasized that peace efforts should be based on a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The UAE firmly rejects any attempts to displace Palestinians or deny them their “inalienable rights.” This response indicates that despite their security dependencies, Gulf states may resist U.S. proposals perceived as undermining regional stability or justice.
Historical Context: The Eisenhower Doctrine and Beyond
The dynamics of U.S. influence in the Middle East are not new. The Eisenhower Doctrine of 1957, for instance, was a policy that allowed Middle Eastern countries to request American economic assistance or military aid if they were threatened by armed aggression. This doctrine was aimed at containing Soviet influence during the Cold War but also established a pattern of U.S. involvement in the region’s political and security affairs.
Over the decades, this involvement has evolved, with the U.S. often leveraging economic and military aid to influence the policies of Arab nations. While this strategy has secured alliances, it has also led to tensions when U.S. proposals conflict with the national interests or public sentiments of these countries.
Conclusion: The Limits of Influence
While the United States wields significant influence over many Arab nations through economic and military aid, recent reactions to President Trump’s Gaza resettlement proposal highlight the limitations of this influence. National security concerns, demographic considerations, and public opinion play crucial roles in shaping the responses of Arab leaders. These factors can lead to resistance against U.S. initiatives, even when substantial aid is at stake. The situation underscores the complex interplay between external influence and internal priorities in the geopolitics of the Middle East.