Us and the Bickering in Washington
This question deserves serious reflection if we overcome highly costly illusions.
There is no doubt that the Trump-Musk dispute has dangerous implications, regardless of who is right or wrong. It reflects two 'problems' that many Arab apologists refuse to acknowledge:
The first problem is that Trump is a dealmaker with little regard for institutions. He shows no concern for the norms of engaging with allies and opponents, and he has no qualms about ruling through executive orders, even if this comes at the expense of consensus and collective responsibility, which statesmen are expected to prioritize over partisan loyalties... to say nothing about loyalty is to a circle of friends, cronies, donors, and fixers.
Accordingly, the political costs of the 'tactical alliance' between the president and an unruly businessman, who mocks politicians, the government, and even the public to deliver results and secure a quick knockout win, have quickly become apparent.
Even their shared view of what constitutes government waste and how to curb it evaporated as soon as the high social and economic costs came to light. In fact, these costs had only been temporarily masked by the MAGA bases' penchant for contradictory populist slogans. It's worth remembering that Musk did not obtain his temporary job by winning an election. He was appointed by Trump, meaning that Trump bears direct responsibility for the current dysfunction and for any future fallout.
The second problem is that many of Trump's second-term appointees could easily meet the same fate as Musk. Rumors are swirling about members of Trump's cabinet, his advisors, and his aides. While one of them, Mike Waltz, has already been removed from his position as National Security Advisor, a number of the Trump team composed of circles of friends, Fox News alumni, golf buddies, lobbies, and major donors are not on stable ground. The key reason, in my view, is that most of them are 'political operatives,' not statesmen. They have no real grasp of strategic US interests.
This vulnerability has become increasingly apparent in the administration's ad-hoc approach to Western Europe, Russia, and China. In the Middle East, the picture is more muddled than ever. Arab, Israeli, and Iranian dynamics are more confused than at any time since the Camp David Accords.
While it used to be taken for granted that Washington and Tel Aviv would adopt nearly indistinguishable positions under certain Republican and Democratic administrations, very serious questions are now being raised. Chief among them is whether Washington still holds the final say on Israel's regional decisions or if the Likud-led far-right now sets its own agenda, with the US happy to merely placate Israel through a UN veto here or a meaningless arms deal there.
Furthermore, does Washington truly wish to 'correct the mistake' of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, averting further fragmentation in the Middle East, as one of its diplomats recently claimed? Or has it effectively endorsed, or at least acquiesced to, the extreme Israeli right's project of division, disintegration, and displacement?
How does Washington see the region's ethnic, religious, and sectarian minorities as it engages with mosaic societies that have overwhelming Arab and Muslim majorities, while navigating its relations with three non-Arab powers? Each of these powers has its own interests and ways to manipulate its affiliates and exploit their entanglements.
Iran has made no secret of intention to export Khomeini's revolution. Until the regional priorities of both Washington and Tel Aviv become clear, Iran will remain an influential player in three countries, though it has effectively lost control over Syria.
As for Türkiye, which is now widely seen as aligned with the new leadership in Damascus and enjoys significant popular and sectarian support in Syria, it is proceeding cautiously. Ankara understands the need to remain mindful of Israeli, American, and Russian considerations. In fact, the questions around who 'holds the cards' in Syria between the Israelis and Americans, could delay solutions for the country's political and its economic reconstruction after 14 years of war and 54 years of dictatorship.
And now we come to Israel or 'the tail that wags the lion'!
The recent Israeli strike on Beirut, along with its insistence on displacing Gaza's population, confirm that Tel Aviv's priorities have not meaningfully changed. While Washington offers the Lebanese soft words about supporting their new president and its envoy Ambassador Tom Barrack (of Lebanese origin) flirts with the Syrians and stresses Trump administration's commitment to 'Syria's unity,' Israel's military and intelligence machine continues to operate in Lebanon, Syria, and what remains of Palestine.
The most striking revelation came just last week in a report published by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that sheds light on Tel Aviv's recruitment of rogue 'ISIS-affiliated' thugs to loot humanitarian aid convoys headed for Gaza. Israeli spokespeople then tell international media outlets that the looters are Hamas fighters themselves.
According to Haaretz, Netanyahu personally confirmed what the paper had reported months earlier: his government had armed, funded, and protected criminal gangs in southern Gaza, because 'anything that undermines the rule of Hamas benefits us'!
Thus, after years of creating proxy militias across borders and planting undercover agents disguised as Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza to commit crimes that deepen domestic schisms, Israel is now empowering 'starvation thugs', who are looting humanitarian aid in broad daylight.
Washington is lost in its own confusion, and the instability and chaos with the administration have clearly played a key role in fueling this situation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
32 minutes ago
- Al Arabiya
Diplomacy or defiance: Iran rulers face existential choice after US-Israeli strikes
Weakened by war and diplomatic deadlock, Iran 's clerical elite stands at a crossroads: defy pressure to halt its nuclear activity and risk further Israeli and US attacks, or concede and risk a leadership fracture. For now, the Islamic Republic establishment is focusing on immediate survival over longer-term political strategy. A fragile ceasefire ended a 12-day war in June that began with Israeli airstrikes, followed by US strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites. Both sides declared victory but the war exposed the military vulnerabilities and punctured the image of deterrence maintained by a major Middle East power and Israel's arch regional foe. Three Iranian insiders told Reuters the political establishment now views negotiations with the US – aimed at resolving a decades-long dispute over its nuclear ambitions – as the only way to avoid further escalation and existential peril. The strikes on Iranian nuclear and military targets, which included killings of top Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders and nuclear scientists, shocked Tehran, kicking off just a day before a planned sixth round of talks with Washington. While Tehran accused Washington of 'betraying diplomacy,' some hardline lawmakers and military commanders blamed officials who advocated diplomacy with Washington, arguing the dialogue proved a 'strategic trap' that distracted the armed forces. However, one political insider, who like others requested anonymity given the sensitivity of the matter, said the leadership now leaned towards talks as 'they've seen the cost of military confrontation.' President Masoud Pezeshkian said on Sunday that resuming talks with the United States 'does not mean we intend to surrender,' addressing hardliners opposing further nuclear diplomacy after the war. He added: 'You don't want to talk? What do you want to do? ... Do you want to go (back) to war?' His remarks were criticized by hardliners including IRGC commander Aziz Ghazanfari, who warned that foreign policy demands discretion and that careless statements could have serious consequences. Ultimately, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei holds the final say. Insiders said he and the clerical power structure had reached a consensus to resume nuclear negotiations, viewing them as vital to the Islamic Republic's survival. Iran's foreign ministry said no decision has been made on the resumption of nuclear talks. Dynamics and external pressure US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have warned they will not hesitate to hit Iran again if it resumes enrichment of uranium, a possible pathway to developing nuclear weapons. Last week, Trump warned that if Iran restarted enrichment despite the June strikes on its key production plants, 'we'll be back.' Tehran responded with a vow of forceful retaliation. Still, Tehran fears future strikes could cripple political and military coordination, and so has formed a defense council to ensure command continuity even if the 86-year-old Khamenei must relocate to a remote hideaway to avoid assassination. Alex Vatanka, director of the Iran Program at the Middle East Institute in Washington DC, said that if Iran seeks to rapidly rebuild its nuclear capacity without securing diplomatic or security guarantees, 'a US-Israeli strike won't just be possible – it will be all but inevitable.' 'Re-entering talks could buy Tehran valuable breathing room and economic relief, but without swift US reciprocity it risks a hardline backlash, deepening elite divisions, and fresh accusations of surrender,' Vatanka said. Tehran insists on its right to uranium enrichment as part of what it maintains is a peaceful nuclear energy program, while the Trump administration demands a total halt – a core sticking point in the diplomatic standoff. Renewed United Nations sanctions under the so-called 'snapback' mechanism, pushed by three European powers, loom as a further threat if Tehran refuses to return to negotiations or if no verifiable deal to curb its nuclear activity results. Tehran has threatened to quit the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But insiders say this is a pressure tactic, not a realistic plan – as exiting the NPT would telegraph an Iranian race for nuclear bombs and invite US and Israeli intervention. A senior Western diplomat said Iran's rulers were vulnerable as never before, and any defiance was a gamble liable to backfire at a time of rising domestic unrest, impaired deterrence power and Israel's disabling of Iran's militia proxies in wars around the Middle East since 2023. Among ordinary Iranians, weariness over war and international isolation runs deep, compounded by a growing sense of failed governance. The oil-based economy, already hobbled by sanctions and state mismanagement, is under worsening strain. Daily blackouts afflict cities around the country of 87 million people, forcing many businesses to cut back. Reservoirs have receded to record lows, prompting warnings from the government of a looming 'national water emergency.' Many Iranians – even those opposed to the Shia theocracy – rallied behind the country during the June war, but now face lost incomes and intensified repression. Alireza, 43, a furniture merchant in Tehran, said he is considering downsizing his business and relocating his family outside the capital amid fears of further air attack. 'This is the result of 40 years of failed policies,' he said, alluding to Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution that toppled the Western-backed monarchy. 'We are a resource-rich country and yet people don't have water and electricity. My customers have no money. My business is collapsing.' At least 20 people across Iran interviewed by phone echoed Alireza's sentiment – that while most Iranians do not want another war, they are also losing faith in the establishment's capacity to govern wisely. Despite broad discontent, large-scale protests have not broken out. Instead, authorities have tightened security, ramped up pressure on pro-democracy activists, accelerated executions and cracked down on alleged Israeli-linked spy networks – fueling fears of widening surveillance and repression. However, sidelined moderates have resurfaced in state media after years of exclusion. Some analysts see this as a move to ally public anxiety and signal the possibility of reform from within – without 'regime change' that would shift core policies.
Al Arabiya
32 minutes ago
- Al Arabiya
US says stable West Bank in line with Trump goal for regional peace
The United States on Thursday responded to Israeli far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich's announcement that work would start on a long-delayed settlement that would divide the West Bank by saying that a stable West Bank is in line with the Trump administration's goal for peace in the region. Asked about Smotrich's statement that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump had agreed to the revival of the so-called E1 development, a spokesperson for the US State Department said the US remained focused on ending the war in Gaza and ensuring Hamas will never govern that territory again. 'A stable West Bank keeps Israel secure and is in line with this administration's goal to achieve peace in the region,' the spokesperson said, while referring to the Israeli government for further information.
Asharq Al-Awsat
34 minutes ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Saudi, Dutch Foreign Ministers Discuss Gaza
Saudi Minister of Foreign Affairs Prince Faisal bin Farhan bin Abdullah on Thursday received a phone call from Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs Casper Veldkamp. The two foreign ministers discussed regional and international developments, mainly the situation in the Gaza Strip and its security and humanitarian repercussions.
