Trumpism: Risks and opportunities
Asharq Al-Awsat, London, February 6
Many assert that the words of Donald Trump, the returning American president, are mere bluster. In my view, Trump could be anything – either an empty sound bomb or a truly destructive force.
We are on the brink of four potentially extraordinary years that could either morph into our worst fears, leaving Palestinians without a land, or realize the dream of a Palestinian state. His policies might ignite a dangerous regional war with Iran or herald a new era of regional peace, putting an end to decades of Arab-Western conflicts and tensions with Iran. He could either catalyze regime falls and ensuing chaos or foster security and peace regionwide.
This is not an overstatement – Trump is undeniably unpredictable. Whether joking or serious, he cannot be ignored. Not even 100 days into his new tenure, he has already dismissed the FBI director, disrupted the US Agency for International Development’s operations, fired 10,000 of its employees, halted all American aid globally, withdrawn from the World Health Organization, and initiated the mass deportation of illegal immigrants, with military planes carrying them out of the US at an unprecedented pace. This has forced several Latin American presidents to accommodate them.
The Canadian prime minister has also scrambled to deploy about a quarter of a million soldiers and border guards to curb infiltration and smuggling, just as Mexico has done. Meanwhile, meetings are underway in Brussels, the European Union’s capital, to deliberate over Trump’s intentions to cut support for Ukraine and hike tariffs on European products.
If such actions don’t illustrate Trump’s character and management style, what lies ahead may be even more profound. Before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington, Trump lifted restrictions on the sale of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel – restrictions imposed by his predecessor, president Joe Biden – and announced measures aimed at preventing Iran from exporting its oil.
As we come to understand this American president, now more formidable than before, it’s essential to assess the issues he will address. Refusing to engage with him carries steep costs, and despite Trump’s repeated assurances of not resorting to military force against opponents, he can still inflict economic harm on those who dissent.
Trump wields two key weapons. The first is economic and financial. This includes raising tariffs – though fortunately, Arab exports to the US are minimal – or cutting aid. Arab nations receiving aid need to reorganize their affairs if they plan on noncooperation and should not expect alternative support from other Arab nations or international allies, as Trump is likely to penalize governments and international banks that back dissenting regimes against him.
The second weapon is political. Conflicts with Trump will be exploited by opposition forces like the Muslim Brotherhood, seeking to capitalize on the political climate. They will aim to incite public dissent against Trump and embarrass Arab governments with propaganda campaigns, while simultaneously maneuvering closer to the Trump administration for their own goals, much like their strategy in 2011.
The Trump administration faces two significant challenges: Iran and Palestine, with related crises branching out to include Yemen’s Houthi rebels, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. Should Israel resolve to obliterate Iran’s nuclear capabilities, it must wait until Trump’s negotiation attempts, likely to commence soon, fail.
It wouldn’t be inconceivable for the Iranian leadership to collaborate with Trump, given its substantial losses, cutting its external power by over half following the destruction of Hamas and Hezbollah capabilities and the downfall of the Assad regime.
The threat is compounded by Trump’s decision to reimpose the oil embargo on Iran and possibly upping the ante with the threat of an Israeli strike on its nuclear infrastructure, risking Iran’s loss of crucial negotiating leverage.
Of urgent concern is Trump’s project to depopulate Gaza, with more significant challenges anticipated. – Abdulrahman Al-Rashed
The extended hand hasn’t been reciprocated
Nida Al Watan, Lebanon, February 6
Following the steep cost Hezbollah bore in its recent war with Israel, alongside shifts in power dynamics and the emergence of regional and international dynamics that paved the way for the election of Joseph Aoun as president of the republic, the Lebanese people have the potential to unify.
Aoun’s inauguration speech underscored a pivot toward national commonalities. This address urged unity under the constitution’s umbrella and within a framework of state institutions, emphasizing that any loss suffered by one party affects all. In line with this, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s inauguration speech highlighted an “outstretched hand” approach, signaling a new political era rooted in partnership and understanding, which bolsters a holistic national interest.
However, this gesture of cooperation found no reciprocal response; instead, it faced a slew of actions, indicating a continued dominance and imposition mindset. Among these actions: firstly, the opposition attempted to mandate the reappointment of Prime Minister Najib Mikati. When this failed, MP Mohammad Raad issued a statement affirming the persisting use of threats and arrogance, marked by boycotting consultations with the prime minister-designate, a blatant departure from established principles and norms.
Secondly, there was a steadfast insistence on controlling the Finance Ministry, earmarking it for a candidate loyal to the opposition, sending a clear message that governance will continue under their sway, prioritizing their choices over the designated president and republic’s head, without regard for partnership and consensus principles.
Thirdly, given Hezbollah’s restricted capacity for military maneuvers south of the Litani River due to possible military repercussions, the group incited the so-called “residents” of the region to stage popular movements, placing the Lebanese army in a precarious position. This was a stark reminder to concerned parties that the group remains at the helm of southern security matters, either through its militias or resident mobilization, aiming to undermine state authority and weaken the army’s role.
Fourthly, beyond southern movements, Hezbollah orchestrated a provocative sectarian parade through Beirut’s streets, reinforcing its bullying approach and its posture of imposing its will on other community segments. This intimidating behavior mirrors itself in the gunfire salutes at member funerals, which starkly undermine state authority and signal dominance to other factions.
Fifthly, in a contentious judicial turn, a decision was made to close activist and thinker Lokman Slim’s assassination file – a move invoking questions about its legal and political ramifications and timing. This sends a pointed message to the regime, prime minister-designate, political forces, and Lebanese citizens that Hezbollah still exerts a hold over the judiciary and that the impunity policy remains untouched, allowing perpetrators to steer decisions and rulings that bury truth and justice.
While extending a hand is constructive, yielding to the terms of subjugation is an entirely different story. For such an initiative to be genuinely effective, it requires a receiving hand, not one that aims to twist and overpower it.
In this landscape, Lebanese citizens await the promises of the inauguration speech to materialize into concrete actions and the formation of a government reflecting their aspirations, rather than one acquiescing to the opposition’s dictates, particularly concerning the Finance Ministry and the monopolization of Shiite representation. – Marwan El Amine
Resolute support for the Palestinian cause
Okaz, Saudi Arabia, February 5
Upon learning of US president Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1945 statement outlining the US government’s position on Palestine, King Abdulaziz, may God have mercy on him, quickly responded. Through the chargé d’affaires at the American Legation in Cairo, he dispatched an urgent message to Roosevelt to articulate both his and his country’s stance on this complex issue, fervently advocating for the justice of the Palestinian demands and their right to self-determination.
The message read in part: “Your Excellency the President. We have seen what was published about the position of the US government regarding supporting the Jews in Palestine. Given our confidence in your love for truth and justice, and in the adherence of the American people to the basic democratic traditions based on supporting truth and justice and supporting the defeated peoples, and given the friendly relations existing between our kingdom and the US government, we would like to draw your attention, Your Excellency the President, to the issue of the Arabs in Palestine and their legitimate rights therein.”
This missive emerged as one of the most detailed and profound communications received by Roosevelt. King Abdulaziz delved into the nuances of the Palestinian issue, supported by historical context and legality, demonstrating his acute understanding of its intricacy. Saudi Arabia did not cease with merely dispatching this message; for decades, it continued staunchly supporting Palestinian rights, providing them a platform on the global stage.
A striking testament to this commitment was its decision to forgo its United Nations seat in favor of Palestinian representative Ahmad Shukeiri, despite global perceptions at the time framing Palestinian representatives as terrorists. The Saudi leadership challenged those narratives and awarded him citizenship, enabling him to advocate for his cause directly on the world’s premier stage – the United Nations.
In a bid to avert the collapse of the Palestinian cause, Saudi Arabia swiftly deployed Prince Bandar bin Sultan to Lebanon in 1982, accompanied by American diplomat Philip Habib, aiming to rescue the PLO from a looming demise amid the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the PLO’s entrenchment in Beirut after a devastating conflict. The Saudi initiative facilitated the PLO leadership’s safe exit from Beirut to Tunisia, allowing them to continue their political activities from abroad.
Saudi Arabia’s diplomatic efforts bore fruit when it persuaded the US administration under president Ronald Reagan to acknowledge the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in 1988. Upon being informed of the US decision by Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Yasser Arafat reportedly celebrated, calling the recognition a pivotal development toward resolving his people’s cause.
This recognition marked a substantial shift, transitioning the Palestinian cause from the sphere of terrorism – as previously categorized by the US and Western nations – to legitimate political discourse, culminating in the landmark Oslo Accords of 1993.
President Ronald Reagan’s statement on opening dialogue with the PLO, dated December 14, 1988, declared: “The PLO today issued a statement in which it accepted United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, recognized Israel’s right to exist, and renounced terrorism. These have long been our conditions for a substantive dialogue. They have been met.
“Therefore, I have authorized the State Department to enter into a substantive dialogue with PLO representatives. The PLO must live up to its statements. In particular, it must demonstrate that its renunciation of terrorism is pervasive and permanent.
“The initiation of a dialogue between the US and PLO representatives is an important step in the peace process, more so because it represents the serious evolution of Palestinian thinking toward realistic and pragmatic positions on the key issues. But the objective of the US remains, as always, a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. In that light, we view this development as one more step toward the beginning of direct negotiations between the parties, which alone can lead to such a peace.
“The US’s special commitment to Israel’s security and well-being remains unshakable. Indeed, a major reason for our entry into this dialogue is to help Israel achieve the recognition and security it deserves.”
Today, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, through its Foreign Affairs ministry, reiterates the enduring commitments expressed by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. He continues to champion a tangible project for establishing a Palestinian state, underscoring in his addresses before the Shura Council and during his leadership at the joint Arab-Islamic summit a clear and unequivocal stance on the matter that leaves no room for misinterpretation.
These unyielding principles reflect the foundational philosophies established by King Abdulaziz, carried forward by his sons who have ruled after him, building a legacy that endures with King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who remain resolute in their continued support for the Palestinian cause. – Mohammed Al-Saeed
Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb. All assertions, opinions, facts, and information presented in these articles are the sole responsibility of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of The Media Line, which assumes no responsibility for their content.
!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)
{if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?
n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};
if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version=’2.0′;
n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;
t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];
s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,’script’,
‘https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js’);
fbq(‘init’, ‘1730128020581377’);
fbq(‘track’, ‘PageView’);
