Us and the Bickering in Washington

Asharq Al-Awsat

10-06-2025

What links the ongoing rift between US President Donald Trump and his 'fleeting ally,' billionaire Elon Musk, the visible divergences between US positions and the policies of Benjamin Netanyahu's government, and the looming clouds over the approach of the US and Israel to Iran?
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.