Paradoxes of Trump's visit - World - Al-Ahram Weekly
The US president's visit to the Middle East this week may project the image of a region open for business, but it could be the calm before the storm.
At the heart of US President Donald Trump's visit to the Middle East lies an unsettling contradiction.
On the one hand, he is arriving with a formidable economic delegation, prominent business leaders in tow, to broker trade agreements, secure investments, and deepen cooperation in critical sectors like artificial intelligence and defence. On the surface, it is a mission of economic promise and strategic alignment, a vision of progress and mutual gain.
Yet, on the other hand, the ruthless war on Gaza continues with no hope of a possible ceasefire or humanitarian aid to reach the starving Palestinians.
The dissonance is impossible to ignore.
In Tehran, the optics of the visit have not gone unnoticed. For Iranian officials, the spectacle is both striking and revealing, as it lays bare the limits of Trump's influence over Netanyahu. Had he had the power, Trump might have preferred to arrive with at least a temporary truce in hand, perhaps accompanied by a carefully staged humanitarian gesture. His inability to do so suggests either a startling lack of leverage or a deliberate choice not to wield it.
Ambiguity lingers at the core of the US position, some might argue by design. While Trump hinted that a cessation of violence was within reach, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee simultaneously reaffirmed unwavering support for Israel's hardline stance. The result is a dual narrative: one aimed at placating Arab partners with the illusion of American mediation, the other reassuring Tel Aviv of Washington's unconditional allegiance to its security imperatives.
In the days preceding Trump's arrival in the region, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi embarked on a diplomatic tour and meetings with officials in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. A senior reformist figure within Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian's inner circle told Al-Ahram Weekly that during these discussions Araghchi had shared key updates on the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Washington in talks facilitated by Oman.
Araghchi assured his Gulf counterparts that Tehran was engaging in the dialogue with sincerity, seeking not only to revive the nuclear accord and secure sanctions relief but also to ease regional tensions. Yet, he made it clear that Iran's concessions had limits.
'We will not compromise at any price,' he emphasised. Tehran, he insisted, maintains its right to enrich uranium on its own soil under the watchful eye of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), dismissing US demands to cease domestic enrichment as both non-negotiable and a violation of Iran's internationally recognised rights.
According to the Iranian official, Riyadh and Doha responded with cautious optimism to these views, expressing the hope that an agreement between Washington and Tehran could indeed be reached and one that might finally temper long-standing hostilities.
Iran has been deepening its coordination with regional actors to ease tensions and contain Israel's escalating aggression. From Yemen to Iraq and Lebanon, Tehran has engaged in discreet diplomacy, urging restraint among its allies in a strategy that appears to be yielding quiet but tangible results.
Just days ago, in an unexpected shift Trump announced that Houthi forces in Yemen would cease their attacks on American vessels in the Red Sea, with the US reciprocating by halting its strikes on Yemen. The move was met with approval across the region, where leaders have long emphasised the imperative of safeguarding international trade and maritime security.
Meanwhile, in Lebanon, Hizbullah has steadfastly refused to escalate hostilities despite persistent Israeli provocations. Similarly, in Iraq Tehran's allies have upheld their commitment to avoid targeting US bases and to halt missile and drone launches towards Israel.
Taken together, these developments send a clear signal: Iran is positioning itself not as a disruptor, but as a force for regional stability. They also underscore a broader truth – that Washington's attempts to partition the Middle East into rival blocs, pitting a so-called 'moderate axis' against an 'Iranian axis,' are ultimately unsustainable.
'True equilibrium in the region cannot be engineered through division. It requires engagement and pragmatism,' the Iranian official argued.
CRUCIAL TEST: Trump's visit to the region will serve as a crucial test for these delicate geopolitical equations.
While the trip is expected to yield significant agreements spanning real-estate investments, energy partnerships, semiconductor collaborations, artificial intelligence ventures, and enhanced military cooperation, one of the most sensitive items on the agenda remains Saudi Arabia's civilian nuclear aspirations.
At the heart of this diplomatic tightrope walk lies Riyadh's persistent request for US cooperation in establishing a domestic nuclear programme complete with uranium enrichment capabilities under IAEA supervision. This proposition has predictably drawn Israeli objections, with Israeli officials insisting such discussions be contingent upon normalisation between the two states.
Israel maintains particular reservations about permitting uranium enrichment on Saudi soil, even with international oversight.
The Saudi position remains unequivocal: Riyadh views its nuclear ambitions as entirely separate from any normalisation process with Israel, which it maintains can only occur within the context of a comprehensive peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians including a two-state solution. This diplomatic standoff presents the Trump administration with a formidable challenge in balancing these competing interests.
Tehran will be watching the talks in Riyadh with particular interest. Iranian sources have indicated that any US approval of Saudi enrichment activities would fundamentally undermine Washington's objections to Iran's own nuclear programme. Iran has expressed its willingness to return to the modest 3.5 per cent enrichment levels established under the 2015 Obama-era agreement – a clear effort to demonstrate its peaceful intentions, as such low-grade enrichment falls far short of weapons-grade requirements.
Araghchi announced that the fourth round of nuclear talks with Washington had been 'more serious and detailed' than previous rounds, a sentiment echoed by Omani Foreign Minister Badr Al-Busaidi, who praised the inclusion of 'constructive and innovative proposals' in the talks.
Speaking to Iranian state television, Araghchi struck a cautiously optimistic note, confirming that the discussions are progressing with a mutual commitment to continue the dialogue.
'There is now a clearer understanding between the two sides,' he observed, while firmly reiterating Tehran's red line that 'our right to uranium enrichment remains non-negotiable.' However, he signalled flexibility on technical aspects, noting that 'while the principle of enrichment is inviolable, the scope and levels can be addressed.'
Looking ahead, Araghchi anticipated the next round of talks to convene within a week, though he urged Washington to avoid 'contradictory statements that could undermine the negotiation process.' At the heart of Iran's position, he emphasised, remains the lifting of sanctions, an objective he described as 'a shared priority recognised by both parties.'
Al-Busaidi, whose country has played a pivotal mediating role, reinforced this measured optimism. He highlighted the introduction of 'practical and forward-looking ideas' during the discussions, reflecting what he called 'a mutual commitment to achieving a dignified agreement.'
He added that the fifth round would follow further consultations with the respective leaderships, suggesting careful deliberation before the next diplomatic engagement. The remarks from both officials point to a potential thaw in the protracted standoff, though the path forward remains delicately balanced.
NO BREAKTHROUGH: It is increasingly evident that Trump's regional tour will not yield a breakthrough in the catastrophic crisis unfolding in Gaza.
Even the prospect of a brief humanitarian pause, such as a temporary truce of a few days to facilitate the delivery of aid during his visit, was rejected by Israel, which sees no strategic benefit in such a move.
As a result, the only potential diplomatic achievement that can be salvaged from the visit lies in broader regional de-escalation: talks with Tehran, tentative understandings on a ceasefire with the Houthis, and assurances regarding the security of navigation in the Red Sea. These may be presented as modest victories, offering face-saving optics for all parties involved.
Yet the underlying reality remains one of extreme volatility. Fears persist that once Trump departs, Israel will intensify its military operations in Gaza, advancing a deeply alarming plan to corral nearly two million Palestinians into four heavily monitored 'security zones' in the southern part of the Strip.
Under this scheme, US firms would be tasked with distributing humanitarian aid within these designated areas – zones portrayed by Israel as 'safe,' but essentially designed to isolate civilians while enabling the continued pursuit of Hamas fighters.
The plan is cloaked in ambiguity, and crucial questions remain unanswered: how will the mass transfer of civilians, many of them sick, wounded, the elderly, or children, from the north to the south of the Strip be conducted? How will combatants be distinguished from non-combatants? When will aid reach those who need it, especially as starvation claims lives each day?
Is the plan truly about neutralising Hamas, or does it serve as a prelude to large-scale forced displacement? And, if so, does this mark the effective collapse of ceasefire and truce negotiations?
With so much uncertainty and no clarity of vision, Trump's visit risks being reduced to a commercial and economic one and an exercise in symbolic diplomacy that fails to confront the gravity of the political and security crises engulfing the region.
Such a vacuum could unravel the fragile understandings that have been recently brokered. If Israel persists or escalates its operations in Gaza, the Houthis are likely to resume their attacks, jeopardising any ceasefire arrangements with the Trump administration.
Meanwhile, the already tenuous nuclear negotiations with Iran could suffer a serious setback.
Within both the Trump administration and the Israeli government, where figures such as Netanyahu and his Defence Minister Israel Katz lead a hardline faction, there are hawks eager to see the nuclear talks fail, viewing this as a pretext for a potential military strike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
Tehran fully grasps the delicacy of the current moment and the broader geopolitical fragility unfolding amid what many see as acts of genocide against the Palestinian people.
In this volatile environment, confidence in the Trump administration is scarce. Its positions shift with the winds, further deepening mistrust and uncertainty in a region already on the brink.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 15 May, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Follow us on:
Facebook
Instagram
Whatsapp
Short link:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily News Egypt
3 hours ago
- Daily News Egypt
The Syrian Dream
Over the past two decades, we have witnessed the collapse of several Arab states — from Iraq to Yemen, Libya, Syria, and, most recently, Sudan. It is increasingly clear that none of these nations is likely to return to its former state. In parallel, regional and international powers have been steadily working to impose a new model of statehood — one tailored to their strategic interests. The Iraqi experiment faltered, unable to overcome internal divisions. Libya stagnated, caught in a web of foreign interference and conflicting personal agendas. Meanwhile, Yemen and Sudan have spiraled into uncontrolled freefall. Against this bleak backdrop, Syria stands at a critical juncture, with early signs of a new state beginning to take shape. This emerging model appears to be a Sunni Islamist state with jihadist undertones — notably disconnected from regional political, military, or historical causes. Its presumed role is to maintain internal stability and secure what remains of its borders. This state-building project rests on three pillars: first, a complete overhaul of Syria's defence and security doctrine; second, the prioritization of economic support; and third, the granting of substantive — not merely formal — civil and political rights to minorities. Of these, the first is the most alarming, as it defines the core identity of the new state. Since the fall of the former regime and the rise of Ahmad Al-Sharaa and his foreign-backed faction, Syria has witnessed the dismantling of its national army. Entangled in the civil war through the orders of its former political and military leadership, the army's collapse left behind a profound security vacuum. Israel quickly seized the opportunity, launching a sustained campaign of airstrikes that systematically dismantled Syria's remaining military infrastructure. Al-Sharaa's promise to build a 'professional national army' uniting all armed factions under one banner has so far proven to be rhetorical — aimed at domestic consumption rather than real implementation. Rebuilding a cohesive army amid a power vacuum is, in truth, nearly impossible — a lesson painfully illustrated by post-2003 Iraq, when US administrator Paul Bremer disbanded the Iraqi army, leaving the country struggling ever since to reestablish a credible force. Even if a new army were formed, its doctrine would inevitably shift from defending national borders to preserving the regime — effectively transforming it into an internal security force. This shift is, in fact, the foremost priority on the agenda. Agreement on this principle alone could open the door to Syria's reintegration into the international community — particularly through normalization with Tel Aviv. In recent months, Al-Sharaa has held several meetings with leaders of armed factions to discuss their integration into the new army. However, field reports and intelligence assessments suggest that many of these groups remain unwilling — at least in the short term — to pledge full loyalty or submit to centralized command. Over the years, more than 60 armed groups have operated across northern and northwestern Syria. Over half are aligned with the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army, estimated to include 70,000–80,000 fighters, primarily tasked with confronting the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces. Other groups operate through temporary alliances driven by immediate necessity, while some remain entirely independent. These factions differ ideologically — from moderate to hardline Islamist — and include foreign jihadist fighters. This diversity complicates efforts to foster integration and loyalty, not only between groups but even within them. International pressure, especially from the United States, has intensified to exclude foreign jihadist fighters from any leadership roles in Syria's future military. Washington views their involvement as a direct threat to regional stability and a sign of Al-Sharaa's true intentions. Failure to address this concern risks derailing Syria's fragile path toward international rehabilitation — and may delay the lifting of sanctions critical for reconstruction. In practical terms, since the collapse of the Assad regime, Israel has taken every opportunity to inflict maximum damage on Syria's military capabilities — conducting hundreds of air raids and destroying roughly 90% of the air, land, and naval assets inherited from the old regime. Rebuilding Syria's military must therefore be rooted in a coherent national defence strategy — one that clearly defines the military's role, identifies enemies and regional threats, and articulates foreign policy toward both Arab neighbors and the wider international community. Clarifying who is friend and who is foe will determine the military's identity, structure, and purpose. It is essential that the goal of creating a 'professional national army' not be reduced to a technical matter of procurement and training. Rather, it must be a national institution capable of realizing the Syrian people's aspirations for security, stability, and prosperity. That goal remains distant, as factions remain divided over the shape of the new military project. Realizing this vision requires a comprehensive national plan — one that transcends ethnic and sectarian divides. Historically, a strong, professional army — with academically qualified, nationally loyal leadership — was central to maintaining national security and countering external and internal threats. In this new model, the army must also help rebuild trust between citizens and the state, foster a sense of civic belonging, and support transitional justice and national reconciliation. This includes assisting in the prosecution of war criminals and human rights violators from the previous era. The current leadership in Damascus intends to train between 300,000 and 400,000 fighters in phases, starting with an initial wave of 80,000. Yet serious obstacles remain, especially regarding arms procurement and military training. Though global arms markets are accessible, they demand vast financial resources and are tightly monitored by the United States, Israel, and other powers. For Syria — a direct neighbor of Israel — acquiring weapons without encountering serious political barriers will be exceedingly difficult. Countries that import US-origin weapons are prohibited from re-exporting them to Syria without US approval and Israel's tacit consent. Even potential suppliers like Turkey or Eastern and Western nations would likely impose political or security conditions that Al-Sharaa's regime may find unacceptable. These challenges — compounded by entrenched regional and international interference on all sides — present profound, possibly insurmountable, obstacles to rebuilding not just a Syrian army, but the Syrian state itself. And so, perhaps, it shall remain only a dream. That grim prospect was recently underscored by a US Secretary of State's warning before Congress: that Al-Sharaa's regime could collapse much sooner than anticipated, with the likelihood of a renewed, large-scale civil war erupting within weeks. His statement followed a controversial meeting between President Donald Trump and Al-Sharaa in Riyadh. The Syrian dream, it seems, remains suspended — between the rubble of a shattered nation and the ambitions of foreign powers. Dr. Hatem Sadek – Professor at Helwan University
Daily News Egypt
3 hours ago
- Daily News Egypt
Manufactured Discord and the Arab Mirage: The Trump-Netanyahu Nexus and Gaza's Tragedy
As the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza deepens in mid-2025, Israel's military machine relentlessly pounds the besieged enclave, fueling global scrutiny of the murky, controversial relationship between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump. Their interactions oscillate between fiery public exchanges, contradictory diplomatic rhetoric, and synchronized actions—all sustaining one grim reality: ongoing Palestinian bloodshed under blatant American political and military protection. The increasingly urgent question circulating across Arab and international streets is this: Are Trump and Netanyahu genuinely at odds, as American and Israeli media narratives suggest? Or is this an elaborately staged spectacle, serving a mutual economic-political agenda—a carefully orchestrated charade concealing a darker scheme unfolding on the ground? Sachs' Address: A Strategic Bombshell During an exceptional panel at the Antalya Diplomacy Forum in March 2025, renowned American economist Jeffrey Sachs ignited what analysts deemed a 'political bombshell' when he declared: *'Israel cannot continue its war on Gaza for even a single day without direct American support. This is not solely Israel's war—it is unmistakably America's war too.' The statement rippled across policy circles and media outlets, sharply exposing the extent of Washington's complicity. What made Sachs' remarks even more consequential was not just their delivery but their timing—emerging amid growing regional unrest and mounting evidence of US military shipments to Israel despite humanitarian pleas. More significantly, Sachs' comments confirmed long-held suspicions—that behind the performative diplomacy lies a bipartisan, corporate-military strategy aimed not only at suppressing resistance but reengineering the region's demographics and economy. Bernie Sanders: Naming the Betrayal Sachs was not alone in highlighting this grim reality. On May 8, 2025, Senator Bernie Sanders addressed Congress, branding Netanyahu's policies as acts of 'mass starvation and calculated destruction aimed at transforming Gaza into a Riviera for wealthy investors.' According to Sanders, Trump's much-touted post-war reconstruction plans for Gaza—sold as a path to peace—amount to nothing more than a repackaged 'Deal of the Century,' this time cloaked in economic jargon. His words sparked heated debate over the true nature of these public disputes: Are they mere clashes of ego and political ambition, or a deliberately executed strategy to reshape Gaza's geography for international profit? The Manufactured Rift: A Strategic Play Investigative reports emerging from Trump's May 2025 Gulf tour exposed the illusory nature of the alleged 'cooling relationship' between Trump and Netanyahu. The most telling episode was Trump's direct negotiations with Hamas over the release of dual national Israeli-American soldier Edan Alexander—a move quickly labeled by the press as a 'snub' to Netanyahu. However, a closer, more objective analysis suggests that this was a calculated publicity maneuver, designed to win favor with Arab audiences. Beneath this superficial discord, Trump's administration continued its military aid to Israel, shielded it diplomatically, and protected its leadership from international accountability. In essence, what appeared to be tension was a meticulously choreographed performance—a strategy of visible divergence concealing a deeper, unbreakable alliance. Gaza Riviera: The Economic Facade of Ethnic Cleansing During a joint press event in February 2025, Trump proclaimed Gaza would be rebuilt as 'the Riviera of the Middle East,' managed by American and Gulf-based companies. Netanyahu publicly voiced concerns in media interviews, seemingly distancing himself from the idea. Yet on the ground, mass starvation, systematic neighborhood demolitions, and the suffocating blockade aligned perfectly with the conditions necessary for executing this luxury redevelopment project. Analyses across American and European media converged on a chilling conclusion: for 'Gaza Riviera' to materialize, Gaza must first be depopulated. The relentless military operations and engineered humanitarian crisis serve precisely this goal. These atrocities are not mere collateral damage but an orchestrated prelude to property seizures and international land deals, disguised as 'post-war reconstruction.' Sachs' and Sanders' declarations only reinforced what was already unfolding: This war's purpose extends beyond eliminating armed resistance—it is a forced clearance of land for private capital, justified under the guise of regional stability. Arab Gulf Placation: Cosmetic Diplomacy Trump's diplomatic visits to Gulf capitals—accompanied by pronouncements about 'facilitating humanitarian aid'—amounted to little more than a smokescreen. Carefully crafted photo ops projected goodwill, yet they failed to yield any meaningful restraint on Israel's aggression, nor imposed serious pressure on Tel Aviv to halt its onslaught. On the contrary, American military shipments to Israel accelerated, even as Trump's administration issued hollow statements of 'concern for civilian casualties.' The superficial diplomacy masked an unchanged strategic position: unconditional US support for Israel's war objectives, irrespective of civilian suffering. Calculated Silence Amid Ethnic Displacement In May 2025, Netanyahu publicly unveiled plans for permanent Israeli control over Gaza, enforcing mass displacement of its residents. Thousands of families were left without food or medical care, as confirmed by multiple UN reports. Yet Trump's response amounted to nothing more than vague appeals for 'restraint.' There was no suspension of military aid. No diplomatic pressure. No effort to halt arms shipments. Instead, the US exercised its veto power to block international warrants and ceasefire initiatives targeting Israeli leadership. The message was clear: Beneath the media spectacle of disputes, the Trump-Netanyahu partnership remains intact—coordinated, strategic, and fundamentally driven by mutual economic and geopolitical interests. Conclusion: The Arab World's Choice In light of these developments, one fundamental question remains: Are we witnessing a carefully choreographed political farce designed to mislead Arab audiences through orchestrated contradictions and media-engineered disputes? Or is the Trump-Netanyahu axis something even more dangerous—a supra-political, profit-driven enterprise operating under the guise of diplomacy, seizing Palestinian land and manipulating demographic shifts under the facade of 'humanitarian reconstruction'? And most crucially, can the Arab world—its governments and citizens alike—afford to remain passive spectators in this grim theater, or has the time for confrontation finally arrived? Marwa El-Shinawy – Academic and Writer
Middle East
4 hours ago
- Middle East
OPEN// Egypt congratulates Bahrain on being elected as UNSC non-permanent member
CAIRO, June 3 (MENA) - Egypt has extended its heartfelt congratulations to Bahrain on its election on Tuesday by a large majority of votes at the United Nations General Assembly to hold a non-permanent seat in the UN Security Council for a two-year term starting in January 2026. This reflects full confidence in the Kingdom of Bahrain and its wise policies, Egypt said in a statement issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Emigration and Egyptian Expatriates. Egypt expressed its full confidence that Bahrain, under the wise leadership and insightful vision of King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, will play an effective and constructive role in the Security Council in support of global peace and security, and will serve as an "authentic Arab voice" that is advocating for the causes and shared interests of the Arab world in this important international forum. Egypt further noted that Bahrain's well-deserved election reflects the kingdom's prestigious standing and credibility in the international arena, and affirms the global community's trust in its ability to make an effective contribution to the promotion of international peace and security. (MENA) I S N/R E E
