Trump's Gulf deals and political promises
Money Works Trump's Gulf deals and political promises
During Trump's tour of Gulf states in May, the US president was eager to talk about the deals he'd made and the investments he'd secured, but do the numbers add up and how many of the agreements touted were actually a result of his visit?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Saudi Arabia says it will jointly fund Syria state salaries with Qatar
Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud has said that the kingdom and Qatar will offer joint financial support to state employees in Syria. His statements came on Saturday during a joint press conference with his Syrian counterpart Asaad al-Shibani in Damascus. The two Gulf nations have been among the most important regional supporters of Syria's new authorities, who ousted longtime ruler Bashar al-Assad in December after nearly 14 years of war. Saturday's statement did not provide details on the exact amount of the support for Syria's public sector. However, it comes after Syrian Finance Minister Mohammed Yosr Bernieh said earlier in May that Qatar was going to provide Syria with $29m per month for an initial three months to pay civilian public sector worker salaries. The Reuters news agency had also reported that the United States had given its blessing to the Qatari initiative, which came a few days before President Donald Trump announced that sanctions on Syria imposed during the al-Assad regime would be lifted. The European Union has since also lifted sanctions on Syria. Further evidence of Saudi Arabian and Qatari support came in mid-May, when it was announced that the two countries had paid off Syria's debt to the World Bank, a sum of roughly $15m. Syria's new government, led by interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa, has sought to rebuild the country's diplomatic ties and convince wary Western states that he has turned his back on past ties with groups such as al-Qaeda. The Syrian leader has repeatedly disavowed extremism and expressed support for minorities, but incidents of violence that has led to hundreds of deaths continue to cause international trepidation – even as the government and al-Sharaa denounce the killings. Syria's new government has also made a concerted effort to solidify ties to Gulf Arab states who have begun to play a pivotal role in financing the reconstruction of Syria's war-ravaged infrastructure and reviving its economy. On Tuesday, the European Union announced it had adopted legal acts lifting all economic restrictive measures on Syria except those based on security grounds. It also removed 24 entities from the EU list of those subject to the freesing of funds and economic resources, including the Central Bank of Syria. And after Saudi Arabia and Qatar cleared Syria's debt to the World Bank, the US-based financial institution said that it would restart operations in the country following a 14-year pause. The World Bank has begun to prepare its first project in Syria, which will focus on improving electricity access – a key pillar for revitalising essential services like healthcare, education, and water supply. It also marked the start of expanded support to stabilise Syria and boost long-term growth. Syria's gradual re-integration into the global economy is in large part due to Trump's dramatic shift in Washington's policies towards the country. After announcing the lifting of US sanctions on May 13, Trump also became the first US president in 25 years to meet with a Syrian counterpart. The US had already removed a $10m reward for the capture of al-Sharaa, and the Syrian president has been able to travel internationally and meet world leaders, including in Saudi Arabia and France. Still, there is a lot to be done. A February report by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) estimated that at current growth rates, Syria would need more than 50 years to return to the economic level it had before the war, and it called for massive investment to accelerate the process. The UNDP study said nine out of 10 Syrians now live in poverty, one-quarter are jobless and Syria's gross domestic product 'has shrunk to less than half of its value' in 2011, the year the war began.
Al Jazeera
5 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Enlightened Americans should stay and fight, not leave
For all his faults and hubris, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy possesses one unmistakable quality: courage. That became apparent during a memorable moment more than three years ago when Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine. A foreboding, endless column of Russian tanks and other armoured vehicles had breached the border in a pincer pattern. In the halting face of such an intimidating display of overwhelming force, defeat seemed close by. Kyiv looked bound to fall. Zelenskyy and company would be arrested or killed as a lethal exclamation point while Russian President Vladimir Putin installed a puppet regime to bow and obey. The comedian turned unlikely wartime leader did not flinch. He stood his ground – on the sacred soil of Ukraine. To reassure fretful Ukrainians, Zelenskyy posted a short video on social media featuring himself surrounded by several solemn-looking officials and cabinet ministers. 'The president is here,' he said. 'We are all here … defend[ing] our independence.' I was reminded of that remarkable scene while I read accounts over the past few months from a disparate group of Americans, including artists and academics, departing their beloved homeland in the distressing wake of President Donald Trump's jarring return to the Oval Office. Before I continue, I am obliged to make two instructive points. First, by invoking Zelenskyy's vow to remain in Ukraine despite the ominous risks, I do not mean to imply that enlightened Americans opting to forgo living and working in the United States, lack courage. Far from it. Each of us has confronted or will confront in due course a defining dilemma: to stay or to go. Answering the prickly question can stir doubt and anxiety. Making a choice, regardless of the direction, is a bold act. It takes resolve to exchange the familiar for the unknown. Second, I have avoided the word 'flee' to describe why some Americans choose to emigrate due to Trump's egregious modus operandi. 'Flee' evokes impulsive panic or self-preservation, rather than thoughtful, deliberate decision-making. Still, Zelenskyy offers a compelling example of why it is necessary to stay instead of escaping to Canada or Europe when a bully threatens the values and principles that you hold dear – fairness, truth, empathy, tolerance, justice, diversity, and intelligence. So, enlightened Americans, I urge you to insist like Zelenskyy: We are all here. Your presence in America to fight for its promise is a duty and responsibility. Together, you can fashion a formidable, immovable buttress against the wretched aspects of Trumpism – its assault on facts, erosion of democratic norms, embrace of authoritarianism, and corrosive pursuit of division and fear. This contest cannot be won remotely – far from the epicentre of the urgent battle. It has to be fought face-to-face with an uncompromising adversary and hand-in-hand with other enlightened Americans, thin on the privileges and resources that have enabled your exit. Trumpism thrives when opposition retreats. Absence creates space for extremism to entrench itself even more deeply and widely into America's already frayed and discordant fabric. Withdrawal only comforts the Trumpists determined to quash dissent and erase resistance through edicts, threats, and coercion. Leaving can also be seen as an admission of defeat – a concession that an angry, ruptured country is beyond redemption or salvation. Dynamic governance is not self-sustaining; it requires citizens to keep up the struggle, particularly when it is trying. By forsaking the arena, some enlightened Americans forfeit their ability to shape the present and the future. In contrast, standing with and by enlightened Americans remaining behind, confirms that America belongs to all its people, not just the cartoonish characters shouting the loudest or demanding the most attention. Trump welcomes the idea of disheartened Americans building new lives in new places because he is president. It is, I suspect, a point of pride since it suggests his vindictive agenda is working. For Trump, the exodus of 'liberal elites' or 'out-of-touch' entertainers is proof that the old establishment, never subscribers to his jejune notion of America's 'greatness', is being replaced by 'authentic' patriots. This response is, of course, symptomatic of Trump's broader political strategy – drawing a Berlin-Wall-like line between 'real' Americans – his supporters – and everyone else. By celebrating the phenomenon of Americans parting in protest, he promotes the insidious attitude that protest is not an essential ingredient of a mature, confident nation, but a form of disloyalty. Trump is not interested in unity or persuasion. As such, he frames his presidency as a litmus test of fidelity. If you don't worship him, you're encouraged to join the despondent diaspora – and, in his jaundiced view, good riddance. Despite their arguments and reservations about resettling to avoid the depressing capitulation of major law firms, universities, and corporate media, Americans face an uncomfortable truth: walking out won't help drive change. Scholars and intellectuals with the mettle and means to challenge obstinate power should rejoin the fight where it counts: in classrooms, on airwaves, in town halls. Declarations from abroad, however poignant, are not substitutes for showing up, time and again, in person to remind America that kindness, resiliency, and decency matter. Trumpism thrives on spectacle, and few understand the potency of spectacle better than celebrities. Many bidding America adieu did so defiantly, wielding a righteous pulpit from foreign shores. Even so, symbolism without substance is hollow. Returning means tackling – head-on – the mess, the contradictions, the tarnished ideals of a battered nation still worth the imagination and effort. Public figures ought to leverage their popular platforms not just to condemn, but to galvanise, to convey resistance not as elitist scorn but as shared obligation. That would impress more than a pointed opinion column in the New York Times or a thread of disparaging tweets ever could. Zelenskyy knows that hard work is always done on the ground. This is where returnees can make a tangible difference – not as saviours parachuting in, but instead as allies to like-minded collaborators who do that hard work without notice or applause. Trumpism may be ascendant, but it is not invincible. What it fears most is solidarity that bridges class, race, and background – solidarity that declares that America is not Donald Trump's to disfigure or define. The bruised and disillusioned exiles can reclaim their rightful place in that grave fray – if they come home. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Al Jazeera
6 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Iran increases stockpile of enriched Uranium by 50 percent, IAEA says
The United Nations nuclear watchdog says Iran has increased its stockpile of highly enriched, near weapons-grade uranium by 50 percent in the last three months. The report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Saturday comes as nuclear deal negotiations are under way between the United States and Iran, with Tehran insisting its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only. The IAEA said as of May 17, Iran had amassed 408.6kg (900.8 pounds) of uranium enriched up to 60 percent – the only non-nuclear weapon state to do so, according to the UN agency – and had increased its stockpile by almost 50 percent to 133.8kg since its last report in February. The wide-ranging, confidential report seen by several news agencies said Iran carried out secret nuclear activities with material not declared to the IAEA at three locations that have long been under investigation, calling it a 'serious concern' and warning Tehran to change its course. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, however, reaffirmed the country's longstanding position, saying Tehran deems nuclear weapons 'unacceptable'. 'If the issue is nuclear weapons, yes, we too consider this type of weapon unacceptable,' Araghchi, Iran's lead negotiator in the nuclear talks with the US, said in a televised speech. 'We agree with them on this issue.' But the report, which was requested by the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors in November, will allow for a push by the United States, Britain, France and Germany to declare Iran in violation of its non-proliferation obligations. On Friday, US President Donald Trump said Iran 'cannot have a nuclear weapon'. 'They don't want to be blown up. They would rather make a deal,' Trump said, adding: 'That would be a great thing that we could have a deal without bombs being dropped all over the Middle East.' In 2015, Iran reached a deal with the United Kingdom, US, Germany, France, Russia, China and the European Union, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. It involved the lifting of some sanctions on Tehran in return for limits on its nuclear development programme. But in 2018, then US President Trump unilaterally quit the agreement and reimposed harsh sanctions. Tehran then rebuilt its stockpiles of enriched uranium. In December last year, the IAEA said Iran was rapidly enriching uranium to 60 percent purity, moving closer to the 90 percent threshold needed for weapons-grade material. Western nations say such intensive enrichment should not be part of a civilian nuclear programme, but Iran insists it is not developing weapons. Hamed Mousavi, professor of political science at Tehran University, told Al Jazeera the IAEA findings could indicate a possible negotiation tool for Iran during its ongoing nuclear talks with the US. 'I think both sides are trying to build leverage against the other side. From the Iranian perspective, an advancement in the nuclear programme is going to bring them leverage at the negotiation table with the Americans,' he said. On the other side, he said, the US could threaten more sanctions and may also refer the Iranian case to the UN Security Council for its breach of the 2006 non-proliferation agreement. However, he added that Iran has not made the 'political decision' to build a possible bomb. 'Enriching up to 60 percent [of uranium] – from the Iranian perspective – is a sort of leverage against the Americans to lift sanctions,' Mousavi said.
