I think you merged "Arab" goals with "Iranian" goals. Turks, Persians and Arabs are distinct ethnic groups with virtually nothing in common, that have competed for influence over the Middle East for hundreds of years.

Even their respective religions are best seen as Islamic versions of Protestants vs Catholics, which produced some of the most violent long-lasting wars in European history and have done likewise in the Middle East. So, you can't equate the two as sharing goals.

I think the Arab countries will side with whoever provides them the best level of security. Their greatest threat is Iran, which has been attempting to establish hegemony over the Middle East.

Israel offers that to them, but Arab countries will find ways and excuses to side with Israel without overtly declaring so. If Israel does push to the far right, that will be even more attractive to Arab nations, as it aligns more closely with the values of the region.

The issue in America is Marxism under the guise of progressive liberalism. Marxism divides the world into oppressors and the oppressed. It then attempts to unify the often more numerous "oppressed" identity groups against the wealthier less numerous "oppressors". However, there is no evidence in history, that once the "oppressed" gain control over a nation, that "the lot" of the citizens improve, which is why progressive liberalism is so much better in theory, than reality.

So, the recent support for Hamas and the Palestinians in the US is largely concentrated among the progressive liberals, since they are viewed as "the oppressed". This is really perverse since the underlying values of Palestinian society are not remotely resembling anything Americans would identify as liberalism.

My guess is that increasingly Americans have tired of this "dance" with Marxism disguised as wokeism and progressive liberalism. This recent support for Hamas has woken up many to the threat wokeism represents to our core values.

Those core values revolve around individual human rights and property rights which translate into fiscally conservative behaviors and socially "liberal" ones. With our social safety net representing the intersection of those two sets of values.

Our form of government tolerates differences and so it is vulnerable to periodic movements aimed at "fundamentally" changing who we are, but we are who we are... and so we will return to our roots.