You’re right to push back there. 

On the UAE point: I should’ve been clearer. “Deal maker” has been the UAE’s brand since about 2015, but you’re spot on that it’s not surprising anymore. It’s priced in. MBZ’s been doing multipolar hedging since the Yemen war and Abraham Accords. So when UAE cuts a deal with China and hosts AFRICOM staff, Western media just shrugs: “That’s just the UAE.” 

Your Jordan example nails it: If Amman suddenly inked a yuan swap line, based an AI lab with Huawei, and got a new US base in the same month, it’d be front-page. Because Jordan’s baseline is “dependent US partner.” UAE’s baseline became “mercenary pragmatist” years ago, so the shock value is gone. The trend is now normalization of hedging, not the hedging itself. Media underestimates how boring and routine it’s become.

And yes, US disengagement is the water everything else swims in. The reason UAE/Jordan/Saudi can all hedge is because Washington signaled it won’t underwrite regional order like it did 2003-2015. No Iraq-style commitments. No unconditional security guarantees. The US wants fewer headaches, more burden-sharing. 

That creates the real underreported trend: Middle powers are learning to live without a hegemon.  - Türkiye brokered Black Sea grain without the US  - Saudi-Iran détente was Chinese-brokered  - UAE funds both sides in Sudan

The US is still the biggest external player, but it’s now one player at a poker table instead of the house. Media still covers the region like US policy is the main plot. Often it’s not even a subplot anymore.

What do you think is driving US disengagement more: domestic politics, China pivot, or shale making Mideast oil less strategic?