Trump’s Opportunity To Determine the Future of the Middle East
Al-Masry Al-Youm, Egypt, January 11
Donald Trump is poised to be inaugurated as the 47th president of the United States on January 20, 2025, marking a historic milestone as the Republican candidate achieved a remarkable majority in both the electoral and popular vote. What sets Trump’s victory apart is the shadow of legal troubles hanging over him, with 34 felony charges and pending prosecutions in various state and federal courts—unprecedented for someone elected to the highest office in the US.
Since 1987, numerous books attributed to Trump have been published, all centering around a singular topic: Trump himself. While none offer a clear intellectual framework or theoretical backbone to his thinking, one can gather that he sees all things as having a price. During his initial presidency, as per his own admission, Trump leaned extensively on television and commercial media as his primary sources of the world and domestic events, sidelining historical resources, scholarly works, or validated official statements. His former staff frequently highlighted his unpredictable and volatile demeanor, making him an ever-tempting target for manipulation.
Comprehending Trump’s mindset is crucial, considering his presidential decisions will ripple across domestic and international landscapes. Among American and European Democrats, his critics have vociferously accused him of eroding the rules-based international order they purport to uphold. Ironically, these critics’ double standards have proven more detrimental than Trump’s often incendiary rhetoric.
Trump’s past rhetoric and nominations indicate that in a second term, he will ardently pursue his convictions, showing minimal regard for dissenting views within or outside his party. It appears Trump holds the potential to redefine the future of international relations, but whether his impact will be catastrophic or epochal is yet to be seen.
As a second-term leader, Trump’s influence will undoubtedly be significant, shaped by his successes and failures. For example, his “America First” agenda could significantly sway global geopolitics, and his imposition of economic tariffs on both allies and adversaries could challenge the free-market system and international frameworks long championed by the West. His stance on climate change poses a threat to fragile efforts aimed at fostering global consensus on the issue. Additionally, critical areas such as the Ukraine conflict and tensions in the Middle East will notably impact his policies and objectives.
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
Viewed from a broad lens, Trump’s approach to foreign affairs is encapsulated in a few distinct themes. On the one hand, his focus on economic returns and costs, prioritizing them above political or strategic geographical considerations, aligns with his isolationist “America First” doctrine, epitomized by reduced global military involvement. Hence, Trump’s approach is often characterized as short-term and transactional, steeped in trade matters. Conversely, his dealings in international relations are pragmatic and rooted in a winner-loser paradigm rather than moral judgments.
Trump is not a warmonger; he is a dealmaker. In international contexts, this strategy is often equated with diplomacy; however, Trump’s style is intrinsically personal, bypassing traditional diplomatic institutions to achieve objectives. Despite being preferable to aggressive military action, this method is compromised by Trump’s tendency to favor power and dominance, often disregarding the rights of others.
On Ukraine, Trump’s national security adviser nominee Mike Waltz recently penned that engaging in a protracted war of attrition against a larger foe is a path to defeat. Some in Trump’s close circle argue that aid to Ukraine should be contingent upon Kyiv initiating peace talks with Russia, with negotiations reflecting current front lines. They have also proposed postponing Ukraine’s sought-after NATO membership. Widespread commentary urges Kyiv to temper its expectations of a Russian withdrawal from its occupied territories in eastern Ukraine. Trump’s angle on this matter seemingly centers on safeguarding Ukraine’s security rather than its territorial sovereignty.
His clear stance on NATO members underperforming in the alliance has stirred anxiety among allies about the potential repercussions on NATO’s capability to deter aggressive leaders. Notably, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz engaged in an extensive phone conversation with Russian President Putin on November 15, highlighting these concerns.
Besides claiming he can resolve the Ukraine war in a day, Trump has also promised peace in the Middle East. He has historically aligned closely with Israeli policies but has never engaged with Palestinian leadership despite maintaining robust relations with many Arab leaders. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not endorsed a two-state solution, even under Trump’s outlined deal.
Given the recent tragedies in Gaza, a Saudi-Israeli agreement would be challenging, as Saudi Arabia has declared that an independent Palestinian state is a prerequisite for peace with Israel. Trump has already shown a desire to end violence in Gaza and Lebanon before taking office. However, achieving this crucial aim will necessitate a delicate balancing act. This intricate endeavor must encompass the Israeli right, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and other regional actors whose national interests are intertwined.
The current scenario proposes an all-or-nothing paradigm, prompting the question of whether Trump will pursue a “grand bargain” toward a comprehensive Middle East resolution or opt for focused achievements, casting them as major deals. The new president’s interest in brokering a deal could be intriguing and, if successful, historic; however, Trump’s penchant for prioritizing wealth and power over moral principles might come at a significant cost to Palestinian and Arab rights amid occupation.
In conclusion, drawing from Trump’s prior endeavors in the Middle East and his statements on Ukraine, one might predict his so-called “second deal of the century” to encompass less than what is desired for Gaza and the West Bank, which aligns with Israel’s stance against a fully independent Palestinian state, while allowing Israel to retain control over substantial portions of the West Bank. Meanwhile, the establishment of a symbolic Palestinian state might prompt Arab states to aid in managing Gaza and streamline regional relations with Israel.
Should Trump successfully resolve the conflicts and attain real peace in Ukraine and the Arab-Israeli standoff, he would have effectively wielded diplomacy as a prime conflict resolution tool. Conversely, if his unconventional methods, which prioritize power dynamics over legitimate rights, falter, they risk dismantling the core principles of international law governing regional and national conflicts, potentially leading to grave repercussions on global order and international relations for future generations. Only time will determine the unfolding scenario. —Nabil Fahmy (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)
