Trump's Middle East AI Deal: "Just Count the Server Racks"
34 comments
·May 25, 2025bgwalter
They are reliable allies in the sense that their significant US assets can be frozen, the US can favor a crown prince and that the Wahhabi people in Syria that are being used against Iran are currently the best friends of the West.
Also, potentially selling latest gen chips to China is an overblown problem.
maxglute
Obvious propaganda lens is to fixate on PRC when MENA AI = don't need to follow US regulations. Too many content creators in the west whose going to cause trouble once AI becomes truly disruptive. Biden diffusion rule more about ccontrol with tiered partners, Trump about business and capture.
null
enceladus06
Why is selling China AI a bad thing? Free market is better. I'd like to buy a BYD Electric Car, but apparently the US Government (Biden and Trump Admins) think that is a bad thing too.
dijit
Tangent;
A lot of people forget that the basis of the European Economic Area and European Union was to promote free trade with the sole intent purpose of making future wars unthinkable.
As in, if Britain depends on France for power, and France depends on Britain for pharmaceuticals- going to war with each other becomes intentionally difficult to the point of near impossibility without extremely good reasons.
If you want your opponent to know that you don't mind going to war, a good option is to ensure you don't "depend" on them for anything, and to cut them off from getting good things from you that might aid them.
skippyboxedhero
The EU explicitly does not promote free trade. The countries within the EU are almost all countries with a very long history of protectionism, there are significant NTBs in every industry, there are specific industries where there have been decades of massive subsidies, and...perhaps the most funny...there isn't free trade within the EU. EU politicians talk endlessly about free trade but these are rules for other people, not them. The lack of harmonization INSIDE the EU in services is significant (and btw, this is also true of other economic blocs, for example this is true of the US to a certain, far lesser, extent). Finally, the issue with free trade for the EU is that their products aren't competitive. They have 2 countries which run massive trade surpluses because due of the Euro and obviously bad central bank policy, if this wasn't the case then there would be rebalancing (EU's persistent trade surpluses contribute to financial instability in the same way that China's trade surpluses contributed to instability pre-07, it is very bad for everyone but politicians in two countries in the EU).
Also, there was significant trade before WW1 (we didn't recover that peak in terms of trade until the late 90s) and it didn't stop war. Saying that opposing free trade is the same thing as declaring war on your neighbours is nonsensical (and I assume relates to something going on US politics).
dijit
> The EU explicitly does not promote free trade.
How can you say this when it's explicitly one of the four fundamental freedoms in the EU?
I can't even read the rest of your comment when you're so completely wrong right off the bat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_single_market
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_economic_freedoms
To list them here:
* Free movement of goods
* Free movement of services
* Free movement of capital
* Free movement of labor/people
Spooky23
The entire genesis of the EU was initially to integrate and regulate trade of coal and steel.
Perhaps that’s “no true Scotsman” for you with respect to free trade, but it is a version of it designed to avoid continuing the centuries of armed conflict that defined Europe.
throw0101d
> A lot of people forget that the basis of the European Economic Area and European Union was to promote free trade with the sole intent purpose of making future wars unthinkable.
And that was one of the reason for letting China into the WTO: the thinking is they'd prosper and the citizens would see the advantages of capitalism and economic liberalization would lead to political liberalization.
How's Chinese political liberalization coming along?
(Remember that Europeans generally had political liberalization before WW2.)
dijit
> How's Chinese political liberalization coming along?
Same as it was in Ukraine, a slow groundswell and then an all at once revolution due to the "powers that be" not listening.
https://www.economist.com/china/2024/09/05/liberalism-is-far...
throw0101d
> Why is selling China AI a bad thing? Free market is better.
For one, China isn't a free market. If they were perhaps it would be more fair to allow them to easily compete.
For another, countries having (access to) certain capabilities may be negative as life is more than just about commerce and money:
> Democratic countries’ economies are mainly set up as free market economies with redistribution, because this is what maximizes living standards in peacetime. In a free market economy, if a foreign country wants to sell you cheap cars, you let them do it, and you allocate your own productive resources to something more profitable instead. If China is willing to sell you brand-new electric vehicles for $10,000, why should you turn them down? Just make B2B SaaS and advertising platforms and chat apps, sell them for a high profit margin, and drive a Chinese car.
> Except then a war comes, and suddenly you find that B2B SaaS and advertising platforms and chat apps aren’t very useful for defending your freedoms. Oops! The right time to worry about manufacturing would have been years before the war, except you weren’t able to anticipate and prepare for the future. Manufacturing doesn’t just support war — in a very real way, it’s a war in and of itself.
* https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/manufacturing-is-a-war-now
China (and others) may have goals other than just making money or a middle-class life sty.e
lordofgibbons
The U.S defense apparatus sees China as its primary adversary. Anything that can help china to develop a stronger economy or military is seen as a threat. Therefore, anything that can create a wide gap between U.S and China's A.I capabilities is seen as attractive.
tinbad
This comment is framed as if Chinas dictator regime is seeing US as any different. China (and Russia for that matter) had plenty of opportunities to collaborate with rest of world, instead they decided to pursue their own imperialist shenanigans.
tzs
> I'd like to buy a BYD Electric Car, but apparently the US Government (Biden and Trump Admins) think that is a bad thing too.
A big difference is that the Biden administration did want you to have an EV--they just wanted it to be American made. Hence the large subsidies to promote the US EV industry.
The Trump administration does not want you to have an EV. Not only does the bill they just passed in the house remove the subsidies it adds an annual $250 penalty for each EV you own.
They say that the $250 is to make up for the gas tax you aren't paying, so as to support the roads, but that is a clear lie. If it were to make up for the gas tax it would be set so that on average an EV driver pays about the same as an ICE driver. That would be about $95.
(Also, the $250 penalty is indexed to inflation whereas the gas tax is not, and has not changed since 1993, so it will be sticking it even more to EV owners as time goes on).
howmayiannoyyou
Free market is better when its truly free. Free from:
- Predatory export subsidies.
- Protective non-monetary barriers to import/export.
- Theft of intellectual property.
- Monopolization of dual-use and essential manufactured products.
- Two sides that are not posturing for war.
- One side that is not disregarding international law.
In the case of AI, the scale of CCP military command & control, and intelligence collection is vast due the size of the PLA, PLAN, MSS, etc. Denying them AI to fuse and coordinate may be a lost cause ultimately, but time has a value all its own and that's what the US is after as it - and its allies - reconfigure to defend the SCS, India & the Pacific in general.
janice1999
> I'd like to buy a BYD Electric Car, but apparently the US Government (Biden and Trump Admins) think that is a bad thing too.
It's a bad thing if you believe China is subsidising BYD and others (including with the use of slave labour) in order to destroy non-Chinese automotive makers by flooding external markets with cheap cars. Add on top the fact that modern EVs are rolling surveillance platforms...
e40
I don't understand why this isn't more obvious. I understand why industrialists want us to ignore working conditions in other countries (the extra money goes into their pockets), but why regular folk (which I assume most of us here are) don't care about the conditions of labor in other parts of the world. It baffles me. If it can happen there it can happen here (obviously it is not going to happen here soon, but given the right conditions... and conditions seem to be changing quite fast these days...).
tzs
> Add on top the fact that modern EVs are rolling surveillance platforms...
Irrelevant since that is also true of modern non-EVs.
mystified5016
Is it destroying a market or is it out-competing? US makers are not at all interested in building EVs that Americans want or need, they only want to build luxury adware platforms. If another country builds an EV that Americans do want, why is it suddenly a bad thing? Is this a capitalist economy where anyone can compete, or is this a communist country where only government blessed companies can compete?
It can't be both.
janice1999
US makers are (or at least were) pivoting to making cheaper EVs. Supply chain constraints during COVID was one of the reasons they were focusing on luxury EVs.
>why is it suddenly a bad thing
There is no "suddenly". These arguments have existed as long as nation states have. A country does not like it when another country attempts to undermine its companies and manufacturing capacity with unfair competition. Just look at all the tariffs and lawsuits between the US and the EU over state subsidies of airline manufacture over the last decades. It's not a China-only issue and never has been.
> Is this a capitalist economy where anyone can compete
Capitalist economies are not magical natural occurrences. They result from rules, in this case those agreed between countries. The WTO exists for a reason. State subsidies and a counties degree of protectionism will always play a part in economic discussions.
FirmwareBurner
The middle east knows oil money won't last forever so it's investing into industries of the future, giving the US insanely good deal to move their datacenters there so they become another Taiwan, a valuable investment the US will be forced to protect militarily and economically once their oil runs out. Brilliant move on their side.
And not just datacenters. The middle east are investing in bring up a lot of other industries to ensure their long term post-oil prosperity: tourism, corporate tax heavens, sports & e-sports, expos & events, maybe aerospace and military manufacturing etc.
jasonjayr
Doesn't this end up being a trap though? If most of the compute for AI is not within our borders, we can get shut out of it? Or be charged extortion rates? Will the "Organization for AI-Exporting Countries" be a thing on the horizon?
Spooky23
Of course. It’s pretty reliable barometer that if the “All In” crew is pontificating about something, it’s either stupid, odious corruption, self-serving dreck, or all of the above.
In this scenario, the Saudis have limitless wealth and own the valley tech money bros. When you hear them speak, you’re listening to a proxy for MBS. Everything that the supposed new American nationalists say about China and trade imbalance has already happened with the Gulf States.
The lazy way to see when these arguments break down is to listen to Elon babble about Mars when he’s talking about it.
FirmwareBurner
>Doesn't this end up being a trap though?
Yes, but did that stop the entire western private industries from collectively moving their manufacturing to China leaving the west exposed to the CCP? When do CEOs ever think long term about second order effects or national security interests? It's all about the shareholder returns and next quarter baby.
And if your competitors are moving to UAE and have cheaper compute than you, that automatically puts you at a disadvantage so you'll have no choice but to move to the UAE yourself or go bust. It's the China playbook all over again.
tharmas
The gamble was that the Communists would be overthrown or collapse once "the people” got a taste of western capitalism etc etc.
exceptione
> The middle east is giving the US insanely good deal
US => US elites
Autocrats hate the rule of law, they just like it as an instrument. Also, they think in spheres of influence where the strong party can "eat". That is why the ideologues behind the current US insurrection of autocracy have such difficulties with the EU and are hell bent on destroying it.
It might sound crazy, but their ideologues think in terms of power polars, with the US, Russia and China as the three world powers, with some reservoirs between them. In their view Europe is such a reservoir, as is the Middle East and Africa.
The same way as the Kremlin views Ukraine. Our problem is that we have started to believe that history was over. That fascism = Hitler, and so cannot happen anymore.
But the human struggle against autocracy will be forever.
- On an optimistic note: autocrats are extremely vulnerable. It is a small group of people that needs to parasitize on the public. It is a matter of people waking up just in time.
- On a pessimistic note: this time it is possible to lock up people in information silos and spy 24/7 on them. All ingredients what one would call a tech dystopia are ready. Also: Europe is being cut off from critical supplies needed for defense. This is how nazi Germany got suffocated. This is also why there is such a strong focus in the US on Greenland and Canada. Might makes right, they only need to normalize it to the US public.
The war to shape the fascist mind has already begun, in all kinds of ways, step-by-step. In the mean time, the press will present things like if they are neutral. Yet, even if press people are starting to get nervous at this moment and want to correct course, they are likely to find they have forfeited their own space for doing their actual job. The repercussions are real. Case in point: The Gulf of America. A loyalty test needed for the Gleichschaltung.
The focus on Trump and circus eats the bandwidth away that the public needs for introspection: how much do I normalize autocracy? That is the first war, the others will follow.
oldpersonintx2
that ship sailed, the US went to war to protect the Kuwaiti regime in 1991
FirmwareBurner
Their oil won't last forever. Once that runs out what's there for the US to protect? US datacenters of course.
oldpersonintx2
data centers apparently
martythemaniak
> It is possible, given sufficiently strong agreement details (which are not yet public and may not be finalized) and private unvoiced considerations, that this deal contains sufficient safeguards and justifications that, absent ability to fix other American policy failures, this decision is superior to the available alternatives.
This is a great example of how incredibly stupid smart people can be. They take obvious bullshit at face value, then spend their lives arguing over insane made-up details of that bullshit. It'd be funny if they didn't end up enabling the bullshit grifters.
Trump is very simple. Give him praise, give him money and he'll give you some public concession he controls. He operates like every other despot in the history of the world. Nothing new or interesting about it.
You're an Emir and want some chips? Give him praise, give him money, and he'll change the rules so you can have your chips. If your thinking is more complicated than this, it's wrong.
I am confused why people still claim diffusion rule or any form of tech embargos work at all. Isnt it clear that tech cannot be contained. If China cannot invent, they'll steal (actually, anyone will do that).
The key is to build a system that everyone more or less consider themselves better off than any alternative.