Canadian coach Jesse Marsch sounds off on Trump and why ‘everyone hates America’

On September 30, the White House's official X account shared data from the libertarian Cato Institute, revealing that legal immigration from majority-Muslim nations decreased by 96 percent following the inauguration of US President Donald Trump. The statistics included a broad range of countries from the Middle East and North Africa, as well as East African states like Somalia, Sudan, and Djibouti.

The White House seemed to take pride in this figure, showcasing their attempt to enforce a "Muslim ban" in 2017, but this time targeting legal immigrants rather than all travelers from Muslim-majority countries. This strategy underscored Trump's continued perception of Muslims as viable targets for ethno-nationalism, a sentiment that resonates with a significant portion of the American public, as evidenced by a Pew Research Center survey from spring 2023.

The survey found that 43 percent of US adults deemed Muslims less patriotic than other Americans, while only 4 percent believed they were more patriotic. Moreover, 42 percent of respondents felt Muslim Americans negatively impacted the country, contrasting with only 17 percent who saw a positive impact. Following the White House's tweet, Cato Institute researcher David Biers criticized the administration, emphasizing that immigrants from majority-Muslim countries are highly educated, hold higher-skilled jobs, and contribute to reducing federal, state, and local deficits by $1.1 trillion over the past three decades.

This backlash suggests that even though Islamophobia remains a prevalent issue in the US, it is counterbalanced by a refusal to accept it. When considering the broader implications of these attitudes, it becomes evident that the stability of the US-led geopolitical order in the Middle East could be at risk. While security ties between the US and Middle Eastern nations are often based on interests rather than shared values, this does not mean that they must be inherently linked.

The NATO alliance's durability, despite losing some of its momentum, serves as an example of how shared values can sustain geopolitical bonds. However, in the Middle East, such a parallel is lacking. Other than Israel, which is viewed by many Americans as an "exceptional" nation, there is little common ground between American values and those of the region.

Consequently, security relationships in the Middle East have primarily been transactional, meaning they are primarily based on mutual interests and concessions. When one side fails to honor its part of the bargain, the entire relationship becomes unstable. Currently, the US security umbrella has been significantly weakened by the conflict with Iran, prompting some Middle Eastern countries to seek alternative sources of security, such as the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement.

Nevertheless, even in the face of pragmatic shortcomings, interstate relations can persist when public sentiment remains favorable towards an alliance. The Egyptians, for example, retained regional sympathy following their defeat in the 1967 war with Israel, largely due to the emotional attachment to President Gamal Abdel Nasser.

This emotional support, or soft power, can be more influential than hard power, demonstrating that the durability of an alliance can extend beyond its practical benefits. However, the current situation in the Middle East lacks such a unifying force. Public figures in the US often express disdainful views about Muslims, which further fuels the perception that Americans are unconcerned about the wellbeing of the majority of the region's inhabitants.

This sentiment, compounded by actions in Gaza, has already entrenched a negative view of Americans among many in the Middle East. If a political relationship fails to offer practical advantages for Arab societies and is accompanied by public disdain, there is little incentive to maintain or defend such an arrangement.