Reflections: How Arab Monarchies Enable Western Aggression Against Defiant Leaders

By Yushau A. Shuaib mnipr

Weblink: https://yashuaib.com/2025/06/arab-monarchies-aggression/

For decades, the specter of a Third World War loomed large in my mind, fueled by youthful readings of Nostradamus’s prophecies and shaped by early global events when I was a student of Bayero University Kano (BUK). One defining moment was Saddam Hussein’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

As a student writer at the time, I penned a passionate defense of the allied forces backed by Saudi Arabia, condemning Saddam’s aggression. That article, In Defence of Saudi Arabia, earned me more than a few enemies on campus, including a physical confrontation from my senior, Saka Raji Audu — testament to the deep emotions stirred by global politics, even among students.

Looking back, my youthful conviction was both sincere and, in many ways, naive. I hadn’t yet grasped the more insidious realities behind the headlines. In time, a disturbing pattern began to emerge: courageous, independent, non-monarchical leaders in the Arab and broader Muslim world were being systematically weakened or eliminated, not solely by Western powers, but with the silent consent, and sometimes active participation, of Arab monarchies.

A turning point in this awakening came with the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq under the now-debunked claim of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The deafening silence of Arab leaders during this blatant assault on a fellow Arab nation was chilling. Not only was Iraq reduced to rubble, but Saddam Hussein—once courted and financially and militarily backed by these same Arab powers during his eight-year war with Iran—was subjected to a “Kangaroo court” after the killing of his sons.

In my 2004 article, Saddam Trial: The Humiliation of the Arab World, I expressed outrage at the complicity of Arab leaders and their failure to build military and technological capacities despite immense oil wealth. Instead, they remained reliant on foreign powers to protect their regimes, even at the cost of betraying their own.

That outrage deepened after Saddam’s execution on Eid al-Adha—a sacred day in Islam meant for mercy and reflection. My 2007 piece, Saddam Hanging and Arab Culpability, decried both the timing of the execution and the broader betrayal by Arab leaders who stood idly by while a sovereign nation was dismantled under false pretenses.

Then came the Arab Spring in 2011—a movement sparked by the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi in Tunisia. That year, I wrote Arab World: Between Democracy and Monarchy, where I highlighted a paradox: while many self-proclaimed Arab republics had devolved into brutal dictatorships, constitutional monarchies seemed to offer better living standards, stronger economies, and more stable governance. This raised uncomfortable questions: Was democracy truly the answer for the region? Or could a reformed monarchy offer a viable alternative?

Whatever the answer, one thing was clear: monarchical Arab states were selectively silent or actively supportive when the West destroyed nations led by strong, pan-Arab, and pan-African voices.

The 2011 NATO-led invasion of Libya marked another watershed. On the false premise of “humanitarian intervention,” Western powers—again with the approval or silence of Arab regimes—toppled Muammar Gaddafi, a leader who had transformed Libya through free education, healthcare, and massive infrastructure development. Gaddafi was also a formidable voice for African unity and economic independence.

In my article _“Saddam, Gaddafi and the Arabs – An African Perspective, I condemned the Western media’s dehumanizing portrayal of their deaths and the Arab world’s cowardly complicity. Libya’s destruction triggered a chain reaction: looted arms depots fueled terrorists like Boko Haram and ISWAP, unleashing instability across West Africa—from Nigeria to Mali, Niger to Cameroon.

Yet, refugees and internally displaced people had nowhere to go, while only a few countries could accommodate them. Moved by such hypocrisy, I wrote May Allah Bless Chancellor Merkel of Germany in 2015—a tribute to a Christian woman leader who welcomed over a million refugees, many of them Muslims. Her compassion stood in stark contrast to the indifference of some Arab leaders whose actions helped displace their own people.

And Libya was not alone. Syria under Bashar Assad, Lebanon, and Yemen—non-monarchical Arab nations—have also suffered immensely. The pattern is clear: when a nation dares to chart an independent path, especially one not aligned with Western or monarchic Arab interests, it becomes a target. Even the plight of the Palestinians, particularly in Gaza, underscores this tragic hypocrisy. Beyond occasional condemnations, Arab monarchies have offered little meaningful support.

The duplicity became more glaring under Donald Trump’s presidency. A man known for his erratic, often inflammatory style, Trump cozied up to brutal regimes and abandoned diplomacy. His abrupt cancellation of nuclear talks with Iran, the assassination of a top Iranian general, and aggressive posturing towards nations like China, Canada, and South Africa among others marked a dangerous shift in U.S. foreign policy. His overt support for Israel’s military aggression—especially the recent unprovoked strikes on Iran—came barely a month after receiving lavish gifts, including a presidential jet, during a state visit to oil-rich Arab nations of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

What’s worse? These same Arab leaders, whose nations share the region with Iran, remained conspicuously silent. Only when Iran retaliated by targeting U.S. military bases did they suddenly find their voices. Trump’s subsequent announcement of a ceasefire between Israel and Iran revealed the disturbing extent to which global narratives—and potentially even future wars—are being shaped by a handful of powers under the guise of diplomacy.

Meanwhile, the loudest voices condemning the attack on Iran were not from the Muslim world, but from the Eastern bloc: Russia, China, among a few others. Most Arab leaders, fearful of offending their Western patrons, chose discretion over solidarity. It is also worth noting that people of conscience—many of them non-Muslim scholars, activists, politicians, and other influential voices, including Nigeria’s own Femi Fani-Kayode—have been vocal in condemning the unjustifiable atrocities committed against Palestinians and Iranians in the ongoing conflicts orchestrated by Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israel.

This reinforced one of my earlier reflections on the region: “Any Muslim who thinks supporting an Arab is protecting Islam must have a rethink. Islam is not a religion based on ethnicity, tribal marks, geographical location or color of skin. It is a faith rooted in compassion, good conduct, truthfulness, and coexistence.” This principle remains urgent today.

The Middle East is being held hostage—not only by Western imperial ambitions but by the cowardice and complicity of Arab monarchies. Until Arab leaders begin to act in the true interest of their people and region, rather than in service to foreign alliances and personal survival, the region will remain in perpetual turmoil.

The time for silent diplomacy and selective outrage is over. What the Middle East needs now is courageous leadership—bold enough to resist manipulation, honest enough to admit past failures, and principled enough to chart a truly independent future.

Yushau A. Shuaib mnipr is the author of “Award-Winning Crisis Communication Strategies.”

Email: [email protected]