Initial Thoughts on Trump’s Victory

Al-Masry Al-Youm, Egypt, November 12

Economic dynamics and other factors ultimately shaped the outcome of the US presidential race. From the very outset of the presidential race, numerous opinion polls circulated by the media and research centers indicated a tight race between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. Discussion often centered around declining support for Democrats among Muslim and Arab communities, frustrated by the Biden administration’s stance on the Israeli actions in Gaza and Lebanon. This sentiment extended to the liberal left within the Democratic Party, where many anticipated a punitive response through voter abstention. In the final days leading to the election, Donald Trump made notable inroads within certain Arab American circles. Although opinion polls can be notoriously unreliable, they led me to believe that Harris’ success would substantially hinge on voter turnout among Democratic supporters, given these dynamics. It’s a well-documented fact that Democratic supporters generally outnumber Republicans, yet the latter’s coherence often amplifies their influence. Thus, Democratic success relies on strong, centrist leadership capable of unifying the party’s disparate factions, albeit not to the extent of Republican unity. Herein lies the tension for Arab and Muslim voters, caught between progressive immigration policies and challenges posed by social issues like same-sex rights. In truth, the Democrats face a profound crisis, exacerbated by a faction drifting towards radicalism and the absence of a youthful, centrist leadership to restore equilibrium. Therefore, Harris’ gender is not a critical variable compared to other factors, foremost among them being public frustration with inflation. Furthermore, there is a structural flaw in the party, which advocates for ideological human rights slogans while entangling itself in political contradictions domestically and abroad. This pursuit of radical liberal policies often disregards potential backlash from some of its own supporters. This analysis doesn’t suggest the Republican Party is without issues, having once harbored conservative factions opposed to Trump’s ideology, they have since rallied behind him, reshaping it into what many now call the Trump Republican Party. America’s political landscape is deeply troubled, a subject exhaustively explored since Trump’s initial victory in 2016. The division in US society has grown, marked by the polarization between the far right and far left, the erosion of centrism in both parties and a deficiency in leaders capable of reconciling this divide. Trump undeniably presents challenges with his rhetoric and policies, yet he holds a relative distinction, especially in eschewing military conflict for conflict resolution. Unconnected to the military-industrial complex, which has historically swayed American politics—particularly within the Republican circles—Trump was often constrained by state institutions on foreign policy. His administration’s desires to withdraw troops from Syria and Iraq were thwarted, although withdrawal from Afghanistan proceeded under Biden in what many considered a disgraceful manner. Throughout the Ukrainian conflict, Trump has persistently claimed that Putin’s actions would have been deterred under his leadership. His willingness to strike a deal, sparing Russia the invasion, remains speculative. Yet his continued assertion during the campaign to end the war swiftly, even in 24 hours, seems hyperbolic and could incite unprecedented friction with US state institutions and European allies. Nonetheless, the possibility of this, irrespective of time constraints, aligns with the deteriorating military situation in Ukraine. Despite the delay in formal acknowledgment, evidence of this scenario has mounted over months, and attempts to achieve a reversal through Ukrainian advances in Russian territories and increased Western armament appear futile. The situation demands a strategy to halt the mutual depletion of Western and Russian resources, a conclusion that appears inevitable. Regarding his claims that the Gaza conflict would not have transpired under his watch and that Hamas wouldn’t dare initiate the October 7 attack, such assertions are unsubstantiated. However, Trump’s consistent, albeit contradictory, stance promotes an end to the conflict while simultaneously suggesting dangerous expansions of Israeli territory. His significant support for Israel, recognizing Jerusalem as its capital, and the Golan Heights annexation, played pivotal roles in fostering today’s stalemate. Recognizing the ambiguous and hazardous implications of his policies on Palestine is crucial, yet it’s equally important to remember the Biden administration’s biased and ineffective legacy, leaving lasting damage on this issue. While previous challenges were substantial, future obstacles promise to be even more formidable. —Mohamed Badr El Din Zayed, former Egyptian ambassador to Lebanon (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)