Voices from the Arab press: Can Trump bring an end to bloody wars?

Can Trump bring an end to bloody wars?

Al Watan, Saudi Arabia, November 12

The aspirations and expectations of “ending wars,” as promised by president-elect Donald Trump, hinge significantly on the evolution of his thinking, convictions, and orientations, as well as his capacity to reform policies he previously introduced, enforced, or intended but failed to fulfill, which in practice, contributed to conflicts. 

This is evident, for instance, in how he established the “deal of the century” as a foundation for “peace” in the Middle East. Alongside it, he introduced normalization agreements between Israel and Arab states, which partially achieved their objectives. However, the ongoing conflicts – particularly in Gaza and the West Bank – demonstrate that the “deal of the century” was not a strategy for preventing warfare but rather one that incited it. 

It was designed to facilitate Israel’s annexation of Palestinian territories. Consequently, the two-state solution has resurfaced as a prominent international option, rooted in international laws and the recognized legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, standing in stark contrast to Trump’s “deal.” 

Questions surrounding Trump’s intentions and plans extend to the situation in Ukraine, which has resurrected memories of World War II with its nuclear and economic ramifications. Trump maintained that he had a straightforward solution: American-Western recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea as a concession to ease tensions with Russia and avert a potential confrontation with NATO.

Nevertheless, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, coupled with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s strategic collaborations with China, Iran, and North Korea, has solidified Ukraine as a stepping stone toward a new world order, challenging Trump’s vision of “making America great again.” This new order is perceived as unattainable without dismantling American dominance over global politics and economics. 

Doubt lingers over Trump’s ability to fulfill his promise to prevent further wars, or his effectiveness in establishing new peaceful international relations as a counter-model to Russia’s aspirations, all while continuing a focus on countering China. Trump and his advisers must recognize the global transformations arising from recent conflicts and acknowledge that his earlier proposals contained inherent strategic ambiguities and volatile imbalances.

Many argue that his suggestion to destabilize NATO and weaken Europe paved the way for Ukraine’s invasion. Furthermore, the inclusion of China (and Iran) in the Ukrainian conflict underscores it as a global strategic issue, transcending mere border disputes. Any resolution rooted in the forcible occupation of lands risks turning national borders worldwide into fresh conflict zones.

The conflict in Ukraine might end if Trump is prepared to bargain European security in line with Putin’s demands, recognizing that Putin seeks a more significant concession beyond the territories he has seized and remains steadfast in his alliance with China, contrary to Trump’s expectations. Similarly, conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon could cease, contingent upon two conditions: firstly, curbing the ambitions of Israel’s extreme religious Right, and secondly, limiting Iran’s regional expansion and influence. These conditions highlight the US’s pivotal role in fostering and exacerbating these tensions.

Washington’s Middle East strategy historically centered on Israel’s primacy, disregarding international legal norms and neglecting to establish limits for its ally, which encouraged the recognition of its territorial occupations in Palestine and Syria. This was a hallmark of Trump’s initial presidency, a stance he could amend in a subsequent term, should he choose, recognizing that peace in the region necessitates a fundamental shift toward justice for the Palestinians. 

Conversely, America had, alongside Israel, fashioned Iran as a persistent threat to the Arab world – an approach that has been solidified post-September 11 and the Iraq invasion, and later reinforced by the nuclear deal. On the brink of these two wars, Tehran had amassed advantages, and although its influence over Hamas and Hezbollah has waned, and the conflict has turned its tide, Iran retains bargaining power to preserve its interests should Trump decide to engage diplomatically.  – Abdulwahab Badrakhan

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, Trump made notable inroads within certain Arab-American circles. 

Although opinion polls can be notoriously unreliable, they led me to believe that Harris’s 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 toward radicalism and the absence of a youthful, centrist leadership to restore equilibrium. Therefore, Harris’s 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 Russian President Vladimir 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 Oct. 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

History doesn’t repeat itself

Al-Ittihad, United Arab Emirates, November 12

It seems that the public may have grown weary of relentless news about tragedies. The region is currently entangled in an ongoing conflict, seemingly unable to escape one crisis without immediately entering another. The situation in the Middle East is dire – fires blaze and wars rage on, with no solutions in sight. 

Tragically, many of these crises could have been avoided if diplomacy, dialogue, and rational solutions had been prioritized. History has consistently shown that violent conflicts rarely yield positive outcomes. Instead, they often lead to further escalation, paving the way for civil wars and allowing gangs and militias to seize control of nations and institutions. From the American Civil War under Abraham Lincoln to the English Civil War, the Thirty Years’ War in Germany, and the Wars of Religion in France, history demonstrates how bloody human conflicts can overshadow wisdom, turning cities into ruins and debris. 

This period is indeed challenging, characterized by a complex political landscape that is not easy to decipher. However, there is hope in returning to foundational principles upheld by wise leaders and theorized by great philosophers and jurists. I can distill these into four key tenets.

First, we should prioritize the rule of law over ideology. Much of what we witness now reflects a regional regression, where ideology overpowers systems, constitutions, and legal frameworks. This fosters various risks, such as state fragility and diminished efficacy, potentially setting the stage for civil wars, as observed in numerous countries.

Furthermore, it depletes the spirit of coexistence among individuals, sects, and religions, arising from a disregard for the laws codified by state legislative bodies or regional and international institutions. The rule of law is the compass guiding every solution, and without it, violence and death philosophies proliferate, sowing hatred in societies. 

Second, we must learn from past failures and avoid repeating them. If we scrutinize recent events, we find those who attempt to replicate past failures despite the availability of rational and realistic solutions that were nearly successful. Historically, the best means of resolving conflicts, from the wars of Athens and Sparta to the world wars, has been through negotiation – with a pen, paper, table, and open mind. 

Third, it is imperative to prioritize the future over the past. Many current events are driven by rehashing old grudges and tragedies, particularly concerning sectarian or religious disputes. During such times, rationality is absent, giving rise to fanaticism and memories of revenge.

Fourth, we must always focus on negotiation in every crisis. History illustrates that wars with no clear goals lead societies into darkness. While some political wars are necessary, they must have defined objectives, known causes, and carefully considered resolutions. Efficient governance is critical. Allowing factions to wage wars independently of state or military oversight breeds chaos, leads to futile ventures, cripples institutions, and saps state energy. 

History offers us innumerable lessons, and despite the common saying, it does not repeat itself – rather, people repeat past blunders. History is blameless for recurring events and disasters; it is, in fact, the greatest document at humanity’s disposal. The real issue lies with minds that fail to grasp these lessons and refuse to learn from history’s narratives and occurrences. – Fahad Suleiman Shoqiran

Inside Trump’s mind

Asharq Al-Awsat, London, November 13

In the wake of his re-election, president-elect Donald Trump has provided early insights into his revised foreign policy approach, offering a window into his mindset. The most striking indication has been the exclusion of former secretary of state Mike Pompeo and former governor Nikki Haley from his current administration. 

Trump announced their exclusion on his Truth Social platform, although it was an announcement he wasn’t obligated to make. Typically, presidents do not publicly declare whom they intend to exclude. Reports suggest that Trump felt compelled to express his dissatisfaction with Pompeo and Haley due to their perceived lack of support following his 2020 electoral defeat. This reflects a man uninterested in reconciliation with those he believes wronged him. 

Haley, notably, was the last formidable challenger he faced before winning the Republican nomination. “Trump is in no mood to forgive,” observers note, regarding those whom he feels betrayed him. While this may hold some truth, it is not the core reason for their exclusion. Trump appears less driven by vengeance, particularly following his conciliatory remarks about Harris after her loss. His sweeping victory seemingly served as a balm, healing past affronts to his dignity. 

The real intent behind this move is to send a clear signal: Pompeo and Haley, will not influence his new policy trajectory – a departure from his previous term, which was marred by a chaotic blending of contradictory policies. He simultaneously antagonized Iran and courted North Korea. Pompeo endorses the liberal order and champions the preservation of American global dominance, a stance that grates on the nerves of Trump’s new inner circle, including Elon Musk and Tucker Carlson (who has leveled intense criticisms toward Pompeo, branding him a criminal). 

This vocal entourage targets individuals they derisively label as warmongers and pushes for an end to support for Ukraine, a swift settlement with Russia, and a reevaluation of commitments to NATO and other international bodies. This aligns with Trump’s assertions that he intends to be a peacemaker moving forward – his campaign hinged on the claim that wars emerged in his absence from the White House, and he will purportedly resolve them and restore global peace swiftly. 

In pursuit of fulfilling these assurances, Trump seems keen on assuming a kingmaker role in the selection of his successor, prioritizing economic prosperity over embroiling the US in another conflict that could tarnish his legacy. However, segments of the intellectual and political elite, as well as members of the Republican Party, voice apprehensions over this approach. They argue it risks sowing further instability in the global order. 

Critics insist that Musk and his coterie lack both foreign policy acumen and a realistic grasp of global dynamics, viewing international relations through an impractical lens of great power rivalry. They argue that the relative peace of recent decades, absent catastrophic wars, owes to a dominant liberal capitalist order shaping the world. With America’s influence waning amid the ascent of new powers, they warn of a return to major conflicts reminiscent of the early 20th century. 

The question remains: Will Donald Trump Jr. and Musk decisively shape Trump’s foreign policy thinking, or will he confront the hard truths that have often thwarted the ambitions of his predecessors, who entered office with idealistic visions only to find implementation fell short of expectation? – Mamdouh Al-Muhaini

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.