I love these positive pieces of your Noah, there's so much negative shit flying around these days its nice to read stuff about talking about how the world might be heading in the right direction in some places.
LOL. Palestinian independence is the problem? Maybe you forgot that Israel gave the entire Gaza Strip to the Palestinians in 2005 as a second down payment on their state, and instead the Palestinians took that land and the billions of aid morons in the US and EU gave them and plowed it into the terrorism infrastructure that helped them launch October 7. Progressives are delusional and obsessed with trying to believe that just because they think the Palestinians should be peace seeking, they actually are. No such thing ever existed, Noah. In every negotiations they chose to walk away from an independent state, if it required them to recognize a Jewish state alongside their Palestine.
Not going to happen for the Palestinians before Iran’s theocracy collapses and they lose external funding for their genocidal aspirations. That won’t happen as long as spineless progressive obsequiously try to hand over billions to Iran for the promise of….fuck all, that’s what the US and EU got from diplomacy.
For the the record peace negotiations failed for many reasons, but not simply because various Palestinian leaders refused to recognize a jewish state. That reason alone has never been the sole hold up of broader peace deals.
And that is exactly what was expected of them in any peace negotiations with a Jewish Israel. Those warmongering idiots would prefer to keep fighting for decades rather than letting go of the nonexistent “ right of return”. They never were peace partners, it was a grift that earned them billions of dollars, as well as the opportunity to move much more dangerous, weapons, and forces closer to Israeli population centers
The "right of return" is "existent" according to the international law (people who are displaced in the context of a war are supposed to have the right to return after the war is over)
Other thing is if that "right of return" makes any sense from a practical sense (and I agree that, in Israeli-Palestinian conflict, does not make sense; but even the PLO/PA more or less recognized that; example: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2012/11/mil-121102-rferl01.htm - "Abbas: No Right Of Hometown Return")
There’s no such right, and UN General Assembly resolutions are not binding international law in any way. Second, third, fourth generations of diaspora Palestinians have no right to invade Israel against Israel’s wishes. If the Palestinians want to grant them citizenship in their own independent state, that’s on them. This was THE point over which Palestinians walked away every time. To call them peace partners is a joke that requires endless self delusion as well as bizarrely ignoring their own statements and goals, which is massively patronizing.
".This was THE point over which Palestinians walked away every time. "
There are several other points that made the negotiations end - the demand of Israel to control the borders of the Palestinian state; the demand to maintain some settlements, and, perhaps more important, the roads between them (making the Palestinian State a set of pieces retailed by land over Israel control); the demand of Palestinian airspace being controlled by Israel, etc.
Several, which were all negotiable. The existence of Israel as a sovereign Jewish state with control over its own immigration wasn’t negotiable, and the Palestinians were never willing to let go of their two states vision of a Palestine ethnically cleansed of Jews and an Israel that must turn into an Arab state.
You proved my point, thanks. The Palestinians never intended to sign a peace deal, just a “destroy Israel by any means deal” - the same spirit that animates antizionists around the world in their support for Islamist terrorism. That’s called war mongering, not “peace activism”.
My (somewhat vague) understanding is that secularism, especially protestant secularism, was critically important to the development of science and technology and industry in Europe after the middle ages. If this is correct, I don't see reasons to be optimistic about the Middle East.
That's a good point, CS, at least insofar as invention and innovation are concerned (and modifying "protestant secularism" to protestant accommodation of secular enterprise). But the Middle East doesn't need to invent science, technology, and industry--Europe did that. The need in the Middle East is to apply them.
I don't think there's a valid lesson there, Mr. Robbins, because you are conflating elements of Turkish Muslim culture with the instability of late empire. In terms of war there is no expectation that a culture borrowing those features will prevail over cultures that have mastered them--what didn't end well was aligning with the losing side in World War I. In terms of socio-political change, the late Ottoman period laid the foundations of the lightning-fast transformations under Ataturk, who was able to fulfil the accommodation of secular enterprise within a decade of the empire's dissolution. Turkey became a religiously Muslim secular state and NATO member within thirty years. I think the Ottoman/Turkish transition is, in fact, a vague model of how Middle Eastern transformations could proceed along the lines Noah suggests.
Great Article, but I don't think I share your optimism.
1) The Middle East's core struggle involves competing ideologies: Muslim Brotherhood Islamism, Salafist extremism (e.g., Al-Qaeda, ISIS), secular autocracy, and Iran's Islamic Republic model. While Salafist Islamism might wane, the Muslim Brotherhood’s less violent but influential form of Islamism remains a potent force.
Qatar and Turkey support the Muslim Brotherhood, while Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and especially the UAE are determined to crush it. For example, UAE influences actors like the RSF in Sudan and Haftar in Libya. With these four ideological factions (Muslim Brotherhood, Salafists, secular autocrats, and Iran) and regional players like Israel, conflict is inevitable.
2) The Arab Monarchies are aware that they must diversify beyond oil or else they'll fade into nothing. The projects like NEOM have questionable value. Many of these Arab Monarchies are not close to hitting their Vision 2030 targets.
3) I think another important aspect is technology acquisition. Even in the Renaissance period, European countries (especially England) were hell bent on attracting skilled labor and granting patent monopoly rights. Although many AI people are moving to the UAE, I wouldn't exactly say the Middle East excels on attracting talented labor or acquiring technology to catch up with the West.
For your part 3, I think that another problem with many Middle East governments is how to invest in STEM education on high school and college (In Saudi Arabia in the past the majority of college students studied theology, law and social sciences, with only a few studying engineering. The situation is better in Iran, but due to economic crisis and inflation, many educated Iranians just leave the country).
Fun fact is that Saudi Arabia used to invite a Vietnamese professor, who used to teach Vietnamese students in International Maths Olympiad (IMO), to advise its IMO teams! They only have silver and bronze medals from 2010 onwards, while Vietnam typically has gold medals most of the time: https://www.imo-official.org/country_individual_r.aspx?code=SAU
Sorry, normally I agree with much of what you say but this piece is quite a bit off. FWIW, I lived in the Middle East for 12 years until recently. I am no expert but I do have familiarity with the region, culture, politics and economy. Although I do agree in general that the region MAY be in store for better days your article seems to have quite a few misses.
First, although possible you are WAY too early with your comments on peace in Syria and Lebanon. They may be relatively quiet now but it's only been a short few months!
Iran was looking good immediately after the Shah was deposed. We all know what happened there. Beirut was looking like it was about to have a Renaissance after all the fighting in the late 1970's. Well, they ended up having about five lost decades. Egypt, Yeman, I could write a lot more about how fragile and short lived peace is in that region.
Second, regarding the main drivers of positive trends, the Gulf States, you spent all of two or three sentences on! Dubai, AbuDhabi and to a lesser extent Qatar have been investing huge amounts of money and effort into theirs and others economies for a few decades now. Their infrastructure is world class, huge numbers of citizens from other countries in the region have been emigrating and improving their quality of life, moving up the ladder so to speak. A much better alternative than getting angry, frustrated and supporting violence. Dubai has been doing this with no oil. An entire article could have been written on this yet you strangely glossed over it.
Third, and related to the second point, the Gulf States are about two minutes by missile from Iran. Throw in Russia, China and the US. There are still a lot of conflicting interests that could quickly destabilize the Middle East. Even with US forces in the Gulf, the Gulf States with their infrastructure and economies are extremely vulnerable to an attack from Iran( or the Houthis). Speaking of desalination, an attack on the UAE's desalination plants would be a economic and humanitarian disaster.
Yeah, with Iran proxies being defeated one by one, I wouldn't be surprised if in the mid term, the Islamic Republic is deposed in revolution (note that a great part of Iranians are not even religious anymore, and some turns to Zoroastrianism as a symbol against the regime!)
What do you mean by political Christianity? The religious wars? I would argue that Europe was well on its path toward early modern Europe because of: age at first marriage and a big tendency to marry outside one's kin group, high levels of urbanization including the invention of free and chartered towns, growing literacy especially led by Protestants. For a good long while Christian internationalism brought technology change and openness to strangers throughout much of Western Europe.
Female illiteracy remains a problem in the Middle East. Exogamy remains rare. I could go on.
I think to apply a model of Christianity's political evolution in early modern Europe is to fall into an N=1 fallacy. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the Middle East will follow a similar path. Why would it? The conditions and factors are entirely different.
I think you could have said the same thing about Christianity for much of the last millennium. It was aggressive with its crusades and later with its anti-modern attitudes. But its monopoly on power did lessen as the modern state and philosophical competition - like capitalism - grew.
Fabulously optimistic, but predicated on a benign Israel which allows the establishment of a genuine two state solution or even a single democratic state with the right of return. It will be interesting to look back on this piece in 5 years.
Israel is the ultimate model for success in the region by every metric imaginable, with an economy and military and civil society that is the envy of the world. And a large portion of that success is due to the efforts of non-Israeli Jews--primarily those in the US and GB--who have provided an umbrella of diplomatic, military and economic support that has enabled Israel to not just survive, but thrive. Because Israel's survival arguably represents perhaps the single best insurance policy possible for the survival of the Jewish people in the event of another Holocaust.
But Israel has predicated being strong and prosperous upon keeping the 5 million Palestinians under its control weak and poor. Especially since the suicide bombings of the Second Intifada cemented the power of the Israeli Right. The only way either a Two State or One State solution will ever happen, is if the Jews of the Diaspora use their collective political influence to shape the issue. Which is extremely unlikely.
Why unlikely? J Street to me seems to be an effective proponent for peaceful coexistence of Jews and Arabs. Within Israel, Haaretz is an intelligent proponent if not yet an effective one.
Is there a way that Israel can guarantee its safety and security *without* keeping 5 million Palestinians as a manageable threat via perpetual poverty?
I honestly don't know. J Street definitely reflects the social values of the Diaspora, and believes some sort of win-win solution is possible; but it's just a bit player compared to AIPAC. So unless J Street supplants AIPAC in influence, nothing will change.
I think J Street’s influence is reflected in the fact the what’s called the two state solution is still the official US position. The Biden administration was vocal and emphatic in its support. I think J Street helps make that politically possible. I read that 70% of American Jews voted for Harris. I believe that also may correlate with a desire to find a way to coexist without checkpoints and all the apparatus of forcible separation and destruction. The certainty with which many declare that just getting along is impossible ends more conversations than it should. Every day 7 million Israeli Jews get up and get along with 2 million Israeli Arabs, what’s called 1948 Arabs but who would today be called Palestinians if they had lived in other parts of Palestine when they had the good luck to not be displaced. People know how to get along if they give it their full attention.
What happens in the West Bank and Israel is basically irrelevant to the economic development of the region and what happens in the West Bank and Gaza is more down to the Palestinians wanting peace and reconciliation with Israel (and acceptance), if ever.
There is a tremendous amount of human capital in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and across North Africa and large amounts of financial capital in the Gulf.
Europe really needs to integrate its economy with N Africa, not just for green and fossil fuel energy but for manufacturing/assembly. Pacifying and stabilizing the region (why are their Russian troops in Libya?) will be part of the challenge.
Were Iran to liberalize and throw off the rule by the mullahs there could be tremendous development and growth.
My understanding of human development is a society succeeds when it maximizes the labor and talents of ALL its citizens, and the Middle East in general and the Gulf States in particular fail this pre-condition. As others have noted the infrastructure in the Gulf is (almost) entirely built with imported technology by imported non-citizen (and massively-abused) labor. More importantly, women in these societies are essentially absent from the workforce and from public life, and I see no signs of this changing in the next century or two. Israel is the exception to the rule because of the welcome engagement of women in all aspects of society, and it is very telling that the poorest Israelis are those communities with the least female empowerment.
Which is why I'm long-term bearish on the Middle East.
Follow-up. On further reflection I do have a glimmer of optimism for Iran. The Iranians (as they call themselves), or the Persians (as the westernized Iranian expats call themselves), have a strong sense of national identity, a long and proud history and culture, their borders were not drawn up in London, and women there are more educated than the men. They are, of course, currently subjected by one of the worst governments on the planet − however governments go and come but society abides.
Europe is an interesting example to use, Noah, since it's expansion and success came at the expense (primarily) of the culturally exhausted and bureaucratic Islamic Ottoman empire. Now that Europe is fading, also culturally exhausted and bureaucratic, I'm afraid I can't get particularly excited about the prospect of a rising Islamic power. Maybe I'm just too parochial, but I rather like the trappings of Judeo-Christian civilization, little things like universal human rights.
World power and prosperity are positive sum, but not nearly as positive as most economists want to believe. I'm not keen on what progressives in America have been doing with the American empire lately, but I would much rather have a Western-led empire than an Islamic one.
I am not against optimism, and I sure hope for all these people that their future will see much less war and better accessibility to affordable potable water. But a story about the future of the Middle East without at least the mention of climate and temperature is just wishful thinking. Already people are working themselves to death in these regions (mostly immigrant labor in construction projects, which is not just temperature related, but it is an important contributor), and this is not going to get any better in the future with global warming. Especially when you consider that the mega projects of a country like Saudi Arabia still involve mainly glass and steel constructions with air-conditioning for temperature regulation... It just makes you wonder what they're thinking, and it just makes any optimism about their future so much more difficult. Temperature control is increasingly energy intensive with higher outdoor temperatures, and involves much higher risks of system failure. And once airco fails in a glass and steel building at more than 40 degrees celsius outdoor temperatures it just becomes impossible to work or live in (and electronic devices like computers will subsequently overheat and stop to function).
Air conditioning doesn’t just suddenly fail, and if that is a worry then you should also worry about Chicago, Berlin and Beijing in case heat pumps also fail. Global warming will add less than 3°C in the next few decades, and if Bork Khalifa was built during 42° temperatures, doing it at 45° is hardly impossible. And factoring in humidity, outdoor labor is probably worse in South Asia. Even in Japan with 38° heat and 95% humidity outdoor construction and other labor isn’t halted, workers wear ventilated cooling suits and carry on.
Yeah "what if the aircon fails" is a strange worry. Is the financial district of Manhattan regularly shutting down because of aircon failures? No skyscraper on the planet works without aircon. Ignoring heat (but even outside of the Middle East the heat would be unbearable) there is no ventilation, air circulation, or dehumidification without an air con system. Oxygen levels would drop too low to use the building.
Just go to any office building on a summer weekend or even just after 7pm (or whatever the lease contract is when you have to start paying for extra air conditionin). The air con isn't even off, usually, just set to a higher temp and it is already unpleasant.
You're probably right that airco is not the first thing to worry about. But I do think that long term there's going to be problems with system overload considering peak energy production (solar, amongst others) and high energy usage (airco, amongst others).
And visions of (20th century) glass and steel construction and industrial growth are just not adapted to those realities.
But sure, places with much higher humidity and equally high temperatures will be even more unbearable. At least the desert gets colder at night.
But to be honest I think those commentators skeptical of the apparent stability of the region might be proven right before climate change becomes an increasingly decisive issue on future pathways there.
Wonderful column, but I think the frame should be bullishness about the Middle East's possibilities, rather than on its likely future. The macro-trends Noah points to indicate that, contrary to the micro-level events that fill the news, there is enormous opportunity in the region that is actually being translated into realized infrastructure. But if history has any lessons to offer, the political and cultural volatility of the region and rising global tensions are at least as likely to undercut growth and stability as opportunity is likely to incentivize it. Most people view the world and history in terms of micro events, and are mobilized to action accordingly. For example, Noah's column resembles the sort of optimism I recall Tom Friedman articulating just before the Second Intifada.
I think it's healthy--really healthy--to beat the drum for optimism when there's a basis for it because the more people adopt this sort of view the higher the conscious disincentives for destructive behavior will be. But I think Friedman's arguments were pretty well known in the Middle East (among those with certain levels of education and wealth) and they failed to overcome movements that mobilized religious and nationalistic extremism. Perhaps after a quarter century simple exhaustion will reduce the ability of extremist politics to overcome the allure of opportunity . . . hoping, also, that those with political/economic leverage in the region don't stifle opportunity by permitting extractive practices to turn rising wealth into a geriatric caste divide, like Medieval Europe.
I know this has very little to do with the subject of the article, but the fact that you referred to the Houthis as "still attacking international shipping" depresses me. As an Israeli I can report that the Houthis have launched dozens of attacks into Israeli population centers over the past few weeks, a couple of them demolishing a school and a public square (thankfully at night time, with a miraculous zero deaths in both cases).
People looking from the U.S just don't *know* about those things unless they're paying very close attention. And so when Israel reacts in self defense, and international media immediately rediscovers interest, the only thing y'all ever hear about is the suffering of the other side.
Interesting thought.... though there are reasons to be quite skeptical. Why ? predictable economic growth is tied to one major factor... broad productivity in human resources. Europe may look similar, but was developing "bottom-up" methods for progress.. education, corporations, etc.
In the area of economic growth, Israel, Turkey, and Iran (once reformed) are much more likely to be the centers of development which impact the rest of the middle-east.
One of your best columns; thanks a lot for it. You did not mention the advances made in greening deserts, new trees and bushes etc. When driving from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem the driver said it’s easy to see which parts are Israel and which are not: the Israeli hills are green. When expanded to the region, this could have a tremendous effect but I don’t have the data.
Noah, as an ex-pat American who has been in Riyadh , KSA for 2 years and I agree with you completely. One can always glass half empty / half full and things can go bad. But. The seeds and the momentum are here. The two things that need to be dealt with are:
1.Some sort of accommodation with the Palestinians and Israel
And
2. Iran. Both Obama and Biden were way to accommodating As we have seen recently only maximum pressure works
I can't quite get all the way to optimism. I look to Joseph Henrich and Acemoglu and Robinson (A&R) for alternative views. Henrich looks at how the West came to be so different from most of the rest of the world, part of the answer is leaving behind clans and tribes and the rise of pro-social trust and a few other attributes. The Middle East has not achieved that yet. A&R look at similar material and find that the Middle East lives in a cage of norms in which they are stuck - again clans and tribes, which make trust and cooperation across such lines very difficult with corruption and greatly impaired state capacity.
Syria remains riven by clans and sectarianism, I'm pretty sure the same is true of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Lebanon. I would take the rollover of fertility rates a good sign though. It might be the leading edge of change.
I love these positive pieces of your Noah, there's so much negative shit flying around these days its nice to read stuff about talking about how the world might be heading in the right direction in some places.
LOL. Palestinian independence is the problem? Maybe you forgot that Israel gave the entire Gaza Strip to the Palestinians in 2005 as a second down payment on their state, and instead the Palestinians took that land and the billions of aid morons in the US and EU gave them and plowed it into the terrorism infrastructure that helped them launch October 7. Progressives are delusional and obsessed with trying to believe that just because they think the Palestinians should be peace seeking, they actually are. No such thing ever existed, Noah. In every negotiations they chose to walk away from an independent state, if it required them to recognize a Jewish state alongside their Palestine.
Not going to happen for the Palestinians before Iran’s theocracy collapses and they lose external funding for their genocidal aspirations. That won’t happen as long as spineless progressive obsequiously try to hand over billions to Iran for the promise of….fuck all, that’s what the US and EU got from diplomacy.
For the the record peace negotiations failed for many reasons, but not simply because various Palestinian leaders refused to recognize a jewish state. That reason alone has never been the sole hold up of broader peace deals.
Just the primary one.
The PLO already recognized Israel some decades ago (but, yes, recognize Israel and recognize a Jewish state is not exactly the same thing)
And that is exactly what was expected of them in any peace negotiations with a Jewish Israel. Those warmongering idiots would prefer to keep fighting for decades rather than letting go of the nonexistent “ right of return”. They never were peace partners, it was a grift that earned them billions of dollars, as well as the opportunity to move much more dangerous, weapons, and forces closer to Israeli population centers
«nonexistent “ right of return”»
The "right of return" is "existent" according to the international law (people who are displaced in the context of a war are supposed to have the right to return after the war is over)
Other thing is if that "right of return" makes any sense from a practical sense (and I agree that, in Israeli-Palestinian conflict, does not make sense; but even the PLO/PA more or less recognized that; example: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2012/11/mil-121102-rferl01.htm - "Abbas: No Right Of Hometown Return")
There’s no such right, and UN General Assembly resolutions are not binding international law in any way. Second, third, fourth generations of diaspora Palestinians have no right to invade Israel against Israel’s wishes. If the Palestinians want to grant them citizenship in their own independent state, that’s on them. This was THE point over which Palestinians walked away every time. To call them peace partners is a joke that requires endless self delusion as well as bizarrely ignoring their own statements and goals, which is massively patronizing.
".This was THE point over which Palestinians walked away every time. "
There are several other points that made the negotiations end - the demand of Israel to control the borders of the Palestinian state; the demand to maintain some settlements, and, perhaps more important, the roads between them (making the Palestinian State a set of pieces retailed by land over Israel control); the demand of Palestinian airspace being controlled by Israel, etc.
Those were pretexts, and you must surely understand that.
Several, which were all negotiable. The existence of Israel as a sovereign Jewish state with control over its own immigration wasn’t negotiable, and the Palestinians were never willing to let go of their two states vision of a Palestine ethnically cleansed of Jews and an Israel that must turn into an Arab state.
You proved my point, thanks. The Palestinians never intended to sign a peace deal, just a “destroy Israel by any means deal” - the same spirit that animates antizionists around the world in their support for Islamist terrorism. That’s called war mongering, not “peace activism”.
You clearly don't understand how the right of return is being interpreted by the Arabs.
Is the PLO the only - or even main - organization that Israel has had to deal with?
My (somewhat vague) understanding is that secularism, especially protestant secularism, was critically important to the development of science and technology and industry in Europe after the middle ages. If this is correct, I don't see reasons to be optimistic about the Middle East.
That's a good point, CS, at least insofar as invention and innovation are concerned (and modifying "protestant secularism" to protestant accommodation of secular enterprise). But the Middle East doesn't need to invent science, technology, and industry--Europe did that. The need in the Middle East is to apply them.
The Ottoman Empire tried the shortcut by importing European science, technology, and industry. It didn't go too well in the end.
I don't think there's a valid lesson there, Mr. Robbins, because you are conflating elements of Turkish Muslim culture with the instability of late empire. In terms of war there is no expectation that a culture borrowing those features will prevail over cultures that have mastered them--what didn't end well was aligning with the losing side in World War I. In terms of socio-political change, the late Ottoman period laid the foundations of the lightning-fast transformations under Ataturk, who was able to fulfil the accommodation of secular enterprise within a decade of the empire's dissolution. Turkey became a religiously Muslim secular state and NATO member within thirty years. I think the Ottoman/Turkish transition is, in fact, a vague model of how Middle Eastern transformations could proceed along the lines Noah suggests.
Great Article, but I don't think I share your optimism.
1) The Middle East's core struggle involves competing ideologies: Muslim Brotherhood Islamism, Salafist extremism (e.g., Al-Qaeda, ISIS), secular autocracy, and Iran's Islamic Republic model. While Salafist Islamism might wane, the Muslim Brotherhood’s less violent but influential form of Islamism remains a potent force.
Qatar and Turkey support the Muslim Brotherhood, while Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and especially the UAE are determined to crush it. For example, UAE influences actors like the RSF in Sudan and Haftar in Libya. With these four ideological factions (Muslim Brotherhood, Salafists, secular autocrats, and Iran) and regional players like Israel, conflict is inevitable.
2) The Arab Monarchies are aware that they must diversify beyond oil or else they'll fade into nothing. The projects like NEOM have questionable value. Many of these Arab Monarchies are not close to hitting their Vision 2030 targets.
https://yawboadu.substack.com/p/21st-century-arab-monarchies-and
3) I think another important aspect is technology acquisition. Even in the Renaissance period, European countries (especially England) were hell bent on attracting skilled labor and granting patent monopoly rights. Although many AI people are moving to the UAE, I wouldn't exactly say the Middle East excels on attracting talented labor or acquiring technology to catch up with the West.
https://yawboadu.substack.com/p/stealing-success-how-ip-theft-built
For your part 3, I think that another problem with many Middle East governments is how to invest in STEM education on high school and college (In Saudi Arabia in the past the majority of college students studied theology, law and social sciences, with only a few studying engineering. The situation is better in Iran, but due to economic crisis and inflation, many educated Iranians just leave the country).
Fun fact is that Saudi Arabia used to invite a Vietnamese professor, who used to teach Vietnamese students in International Maths Olympiad (IMO), to advise its IMO teams! They only have silver and bronze medals from 2010 onwards, while Vietnam typically has gold medals most of the time: https://www.imo-official.org/country_individual_r.aspx?code=SAU
The way that UAE and other wealthy Muslim countries treat their labor doesn't bode well for any successful long-term talent transfer.
Have you ever been to the UAE?
Sorry, normally I agree with much of what you say but this piece is quite a bit off. FWIW, I lived in the Middle East for 12 years until recently. I am no expert but I do have familiarity with the region, culture, politics and economy. Although I do agree in general that the region MAY be in store for better days your article seems to have quite a few misses.
First, although possible you are WAY too early with your comments on peace in Syria and Lebanon. They may be relatively quiet now but it's only been a short few months!
Iran was looking good immediately after the Shah was deposed. We all know what happened there. Beirut was looking like it was about to have a Renaissance after all the fighting in the late 1970's. Well, they ended up having about five lost decades. Egypt, Yeman, I could write a lot more about how fragile and short lived peace is in that region.
Second, regarding the main drivers of positive trends, the Gulf States, you spent all of two or three sentences on! Dubai, AbuDhabi and to a lesser extent Qatar have been investing huge amounts of money and effort into theirs and others economies for a few decades now. Their infrastructure is world class, huge numbers of citizens from other countries in the region have been emigrating and improving their quality of life, moving up the ladder so to speak. A much better alternative than getting angry, frustrated and supporting violence. Dubai has been doing this with no oil. An entire article could have been written on this yet you strangely glossed over it.
Third, and related to the second point, the Gulf States are about two minutes by missile from Iran. Throw in Russia, China and the US. There are still a lot of conflicting interests that could quickly destabilize the Middle East. Even with US forces in the Gulf, the Gulf States with their infrastructure and economies are extremely vulnerable to an attack from Iran( or the Houthis). Speaking of desalination, an attack on the UAE's desalination plants would be a economic and humanitarian disaster.
Sorry Noah but you missed the mark on this one...
You are right on a 3-5 year view but I think Noah could be right out 15-20 years.
We shall see. It's pretty difficult to forecast out that far.
Yeah, with Iran proxies being defeated one by one, I wouldn't be surprised if in the mid term, the Islamic Republic is deposed in revolution (note that a great part of Iranians are not even religious anymore, and some turns to Zoroastrianism as a symbol against the regime!)
It’s hard to see political Islam fading away, and in general, political Islam has not been conducive to innovation and growth. We will see.
I think what happened to political Christianity in Early Modern Europe is probably instructive here...
What do you mean by political Christianity? The religious wars? I would argue that Europe was well on its path toward early modern Europe because of: age at first marriage and a big tendency to marry outside one's kin group, high levels of urbanization including the invention of free and chartered towns, growing literacy especially led by Protestants. For a good long while Christian internationalism brought technology change and openness to strangers throughout much of Western Europe.
Female illiteracy remains a problem in the Middle East. Exogamy remains rare. I could go on.
Joseph Henrich has entered the chat.
I think to apply a model of Christianity's political evolution in early modern Europe is to fall into an N=1 fallacy. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the Middle East will follow a similar path. Why would it? The conditions and factors are entirely different.
Early modern Europe had Descartes and Newton to change the direction of thinking. Who will do that for political Islam?
I think you could have said the same thing about Christianity for much of the last millennium. It was aggressive with its crusades and later with its anti-modern attitudes. But its monopoly on power did lessen as the modern state and philosophical competition - like capitalism - grew.
I hope you’re right. E
Has it not been fading in the past decade or two?
Hard for me to say. It would be nice if it is, and if it continues to fade.
Fabulously optimistic, but predicated on a benign Israel which allows the establishment of a genuine two state solution or even a single democratic state with the right of return. It will be interesting to look back on this piece in 5 years.
Israel is the ultimate model for success in the region by every metric imaginable, with an economy and military and civil society that is the envy of the world. And a large portion of that success is due to the efforts of non-Israeli Jews--primarily those in the US and GB--who have provided an umbrella of diplomatic, military and economic support that has enabled Israel to not just survive, but thrive. Because Israel's survival arguably represents perhaps the single best insurance policy possible for the survival of the Jewish people in the event of another Holocaust.
But Israel has predicated being strong and prosperous upon keeping the 5 million Palestinians under its control weak and poor. Especially since the suicide bombings of the Second Intifada cemented the power of the Israeli Right. The only way either a Two State or One State solution will ever happen, is if the Jews of the Diaspora use their collective political influence to shape the issue. Which is extremely unlikely.
Why unlikely? J Street to me seems to be an effective proponent for peaceful coexistence of Jews and Arabs. Within Israel, Haaretz is an intelligent proponent if not yet an effective one.
J Street and Haaretz have little to no sway in Israel proper.
Is there a way that Israel can guarantee its safety and security *without* keeping 5 million Palestinians as a manageable threat via perpetual poverty?
I honestly don't know. J Street definitely reflects the social values of the Diaspora, and believes some sort of win-win solution is possible; but it's just a bit player compared to AIPAC. So unless J Street supplants AIPAC in influence, nothing will change.
I think J Street’s influence is reflected in the fact the what’s called the two state solution is still the official US position. The Biden administration was vocal and emphatic in its support. I think J Street helps make that politically possible. I read that 70% of American Jews voted for Harris. I believe that also may correlate with a desire to find a way to coexist without checkpoints and all the apparatus of forcible separation and destruction. The certainty with which many declare that just getting along is impossible ends more conversations than it should. Every day 7 million Israeli Jews get up and get along with 2 million Israeli Arabs, what’s called 1948 Arabs but who would today be called Palestinians if they had lived in other parts of Palestine when they had the good luck to not be displaced. People know how to get along if they give it their full attention.
What happens in the West Bank and Israel is basically irrelevant to the economic development of the region and what happens in the West Bank and Gaza is more down to the Palestinians wanting peace and reconciliation with Israel (and acceptance), if ever.
There is a tremendous amount of human capital in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and across North Africa and large amounts of financial capital in the Gulf.
Europe really needs to integrate its economy with N Africa, not just for green and fossil fuel energy but for manufacturing/assembly. Pacifying and stabilizing the region (why are their Russian troops in Libya?) will be part of the challenge.
Were Iran to liberalize and throw off the rule by the mullahs there could be tremendous development and growth.
Palestinians aren’t interested in a peaceful solution that invokes an Israeli state. Don’t hold your breath waiting for them to get a clue.
My understanding of human development is a society succeeds when it maximizes the labor and talents of ALL its citizens, and the Middle East in general and the Gulf States in particular fail this pre-condition. As others have noted the infrastructure in the Gulf is (almost) entirely built with imported technology by imported non-citizen (and massively-abused) labor. More importantly, women in these societies are essentially absent from the workforce and from public life, and I see no signs of this changing in the next century or two. Israel is the exception to the rule because of the welcome engagement of women in all aspects of society, and it is very telling that the poorest Israelis are those communities with the least female empowerment.
Which is why I'm long-term bearish on the Middle East.
Follow-up. On further reflection I do have a glimmer of optimism for Iran. The Iranians (as they call themselves), or the Persians (as the westernized Iranian expats call themselves), have a strong sense of national identity, a long and proud history and culture, their borders were not drawn up in London, and women there are more educated than the men. They are, of course, currently subjected by one of the worst governments on the planet − however governments go and come but society abides.
Which is why I am long-term bullish on Iran.
Same for Turkey. Also, maybe Egypt. Other than that, I'm pessimistic.
Europe is an interesting example to use, Noah, since it's expansion and success came at the expense (primarily) of the culturally exhausted and bureaucratic Islamic Ottoman empire. Now that Europe is fading, also culturally exhausted and bureaucratic, I'm afraid I can't get particularly excited about the prospect of a rising Islamic power. Maybe I'm just too parochial, but I rather like the trappings of Judeo-Christian civilization, little things like universal human rights.
World power and prosperity are positive sum, but not nearly as positive as most economists want to believe. I'm not keen on what progressives in America have been doing with the American empire lately, but I would much rather have a Western-led empire than an Islamic one.
I am not against optimism, and I sure hope for all these people that their future will see much less war and better accessibility to affordable potable water. But a story about the future of the Middle East without at least the mention of climate and temperature is just wishful thinking. Already people are working themselves to death in these regions (mostly immigrant labor in construction projects, which is not just temperature related, but it is an important contributor), and this is not going to get any better in the future with global warming. Especially when you consider that the mega projects of a country like Saudi Arabia still involve mainly glass and steel constructions with air-conditioning for temperature regulation... It just makes you wonder what they're thinking, and it just makes any optimism about their future so much more difficult. Temperature control is increasingly energy intensive with higher outdoor temperatures, and involves much higher risks of system failure. And once airco fails in a glass and steel building at more than 40 degrees celsius outdoor temperatures it just becomes impossible to work or live in (and electronic devices like computers will subsequently overheat and stop to function).
Air conditioning doesn’t just suddenly fail, and if that is a worry then you should also worry about Chicago, Berlin and Beijing in case heat pumps also fail. Global warming will add less than 3°C in the next few decades, and if Bork Khalifa was built during 42° temperatures, doing it at 45° is hardly impossible. And factoring in humidity, outdoor labor is probably worse in South Asia. Even in Japan with 38° heat and 95% humidity outdoor construction and other labor isn’t halted, workers wear ventilated cooling suits and carry on.
Yeah "what if the aircon fails" is a strange worry. Is the financial district of Manhattan regularly shutting down because of aircon failures? No skyscraper on the planet works without aircon. Ignoring heat (but even outside of the Middle East the heat would be unbearable) there is no ventilation, air circulation, or dehumidification without an air con system. Oxygen levels would drop too low to use the building.
Just go to any office building on a summer weekend or even just after 7pm (or whatever the lease contract is when you have to start paying for extra air conditionin). The air con isn't even off, usually, just set to a higher temp and it is already unpleasant.
You're probably right that airco is not the first thing to worry about. But I do think that long term there's going to be problems with system overload considering peak energy production (solar, amongst others) and high energy usage (airco, amongst others).
And visions of (20th century) glass and steel construction and industrial growth are just not adapted to those realities.
But sure, places with much higher humidity and equally high temperatures will be even more unbearable. At least the desert gets colder at night.
But to be honest I think those commentators skeptical of the apparent stability of the region might be proven right before climate change becomes an increasingly decisive issue on future pathways there.
Wonderful column, but I think the frame should be bullishness about the Middle East's possibilities, rather than on its likely future. The macro-trends Noah points to indicate that, contrary to the micro-level events that fill the news, there is enormous opportunity in the region that is actually being translated into realized infrastructure. But if history has any lessons to offer, the political and cultural volatility of the region and rising global tensions are at least as likely to undercut growth and stability as opportunity is likely to incentivize it. Most people view the world and history in terms of micro events, and are mobilized to action accordingly. For example, Noah's column resembles the sort of optimism I recall Tom Friedman articulating just before the Second Intifada.
I think it's healthy--really healthy--to beat the drum for optimism when there's a basis for it because the more people adopt this sort of view the higher the conscious disincentives for destructive behavior will be. But I think Friedman's arguments were pretty well known in the Middle East (among those with certain levels of education and wealth) and they failed to overcome movements that mobilized religious and nationalistic extremism. Perhaps after a quarter century simple exhaustion will reduce the ability of extremist politics to overcome the allure of opportunity . . . hoping, also, that those with political/economic leverage in the region don't stifle opportunity by permitting extractive practices to turn rising wealth into a geriatric caste divide, like Medieval Europe.
I know this has very little to do with the subject of the article, but the fact that you referred to the Houthis as "still attacking international shipping" depresses me. As an Israeli I can report that the Houthis have launched dozens of attacks into Israeli population centers over the past few weeks, a couple of them demolishing a school and a public square (thankfully at night time, with a miraculous zero deaths in both cases).
People looking from the U.S just don't *know* about those things unless they're paying very close attention. And so when Israel reacts in self defense, and international media immediately rediscovers interest, the only thing y'all ever hear about is the suffering of the other side.
Interesting thought.... though there are reasons to be quite skeptical. Why ? predictable economic growth is tied to one major factor... broad productivity in human resources. Europe may look similar, but was developing "bottom-up" methods for progress.. education, corporations, etc.
In the area of economic growth, Israel, Turkey, and Iran (once reformed) are much more likely to be the centers of development which impact the rest of the middle-east.
One of your best columns; thanks a lot for it. You did not mention the advances made in greening deserts, new trees and bushes etc. When driving from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem the driver said it’s easy to see which parts are Israel and which are not: the Israeli hills are green. When expanded to the region, this could have a tremendous effect but I don’t have the data.
Hans Wissema, the Netherlands
Noah, as an ex-pat American who has been in Riyadh , KSA for 2 years and I agree with you completely. One can always glass half empty / half full and things can go bad. But. The seeds and the momentum are here. The two things that need to be dealt with are:
1.Some sort of accommodation with the Palestinians and Israel
And
2. Iran. Both Obama and Biden were way to accommodating As we have seen recently only maximum pressure works
But 🤞 the desert could bloom 🌻
I can't quite get all the way to optimism. I look to Joseph Henrich and Acemoglu and Robinson (A&R) for alternative views. Henrich looks at how the West came to be so different from most of the rest of the world, part of the answer is leaving behind clans and tribes and the rise of pro-social trust and a few other attributes. The Middle East has not achieved that yet. A&R look at similar material and find that the Middle East lives in a cage of norms in which they are stuck - again clans and tribes, which make trust and cooperation across such lines very difficult with corruption and greatly impaired state capacity.
Syria remains riven by clans and sectarianism, I'm pretty sure the same is true of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Lebanon. I would take the rollover of fertility rates a good sign though. It might be the leading edge of change.