Trump Visits Al Udeid, Says Qatar Will Invest $10 Billion in Air Base
US President Donald Trump said on Thursday that Qatar will invest $10 billion in the coming years in the Al Udeid Air Base southwest of Doha, the largest US military facility in the Middle East.
Speaking at a meeting with business leaders in Qatar, Trump said his trip through the Gulf region could generate $4 trillion.
'This is a record tour. There's never been a tour that will raise—it could be a total of $3.5, $4 trillion. Just in this four or five days,' he said.
He described his visits to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the Emirates as a historic trip.
Later during a visit to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar on Thursday, where he spoke to American troops, Trump said, 'We almost lost the Middle East because of the policies of the Joe Biden administration. But we're going to protect the Middle East.'
On the nuclear file, Trump revealed that the United States is 'very close to making a deal with Iran,' stating that Tehran has 'somewhat agreed to the terms' of a long-term agreement. He added, 'We want to deal with the Iran problem in a smart way — but not violently.'
On the situation in Yemen, Trump said the US is prepared to return to military operations against the Houthis if provoked.
'We're dealing with the Houthis, and I think that's been very successful. But maybe an attack will be launched tomorrow — in which case, we'll go back to the offensive,' he said.
Trump then praised US troops stationed at the Al Udeid Air Base in Doha.
'You are the greatest fighting force in the history of the world. We have the strongest military in the world,' he said.
Trump also touted plans for advanced US warplanes — including the Boeing F-47 announced in March as an update on the F-22 and named in honor of both the incumbent 47th president and the founding year of the Air Force.
'We're going to do an F-55 and I think if we get the right price, we have to get the right price, and that'll be two engines and a super upgrade on the F-35,' Trump said.
The US President also commented on his meeting with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa in Riyadh.
'I didn't know Syria had been under sanctions for this long,' Trump said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
Lavrov, Rubio discuss settlement of war in Ukraine, forthcoming talks, agencies report
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio discussed on Sunday prospects for settling the conflict in Ukraine and Russia-Ukraine talks set for Monday in Turkiye, Lavrov's ministry said. 'The situation linked to the Ukraine crisis was discussed,' the ministry said in a statement on its website. 'S.V. Lavrov and M. Rubio also exchanged views on various initiatives concerning a settlement of the Ukraine crisis, including plans to resume direct Russian-Ukrainian talks in Istanbul on June 2.' The US State Department, which noted the call was at Russia's request, said Rubio reiterated US President Donald Trump's call for continued direct talks between Russia and Ukraine to achieve 'a lasting peace.' The ministry also said that during the conversation Rubio expressed condolences over deaths that occurred when two bridges were blown up in separate Russian regions bordering Ukraine. 'It was stressed on the Russian side that competent bodies will proceed with a thorough investigation and the results will be published. The guilty parties will be identified and will without doubt be subject to a worthy punishment.' Russian officials said at least seven people were killed and 69 injured when the two bridges were blown up on Saturday.
Arab News
3 hours ago
- Arab News
Is Iraq ready to stand alone against extremist threats if US withdrawal goes ahead?
LONDON: When Daesh extremists seized control of swathes of Iraqi territory in 2014, many wondered whether the onslaught could have been prevented had US troops not withdrawn from the country three years earlier. As the militants surged into Iraq's second-largest city, Mosul, there were reports of members of the Iraqi Security Forces stripping off their uniforms as they fled. 'We can't beat them,' an unnamed army officer told Reuters amid the chaos. 'They are well-trained in street fighting, and we're not. We need a whole army to drive them out of Mosul.' After three years of fierce fighting that took Daesh within 25 kilometers of the capital, Baghdad, the extremists were finally driven back and Mosul was liberated. The gargantuan military effort was spearheaded by Iraq's elite Counter Terrorism Service, bolstered by the return of American troops and the US Air Force. Images of the destruction in Mosul, along with the catastrophic impact of Daesh's occupation, might be playing on the minds of Washington officials as they once again weigh whether or not to remove American troops still stationed in Iraq. As it stands, the US and Iraq have agreed to end Operation Inherent Resolve — the US-led coalition's mission to combat Daesh — by September. Most of the 2,500 US personnel in Iraq are scheduled to leave in the initial phase, with a small number remaining until 2026. Many believe US President Donald Trump, acting under his isolationist tendencies, will want to hasten the withdrawal of those forces, or is unlikely to extend their stay if the Iraqi government requests it. With reports of an increase in attacks by Daesh sleeper cells, fears of instability across the border in Syria, and with Iran looking to shore up its proxy militias in Iraq, there are concerns that another complete US withdrawal will once again leave the country vulnerable. 'The risk of premature withdrawal from Iraq is that the Iraqi Security Forces will lose critical operational and tactical support, and Daesh will seize the opportunity to reconstitute and once again terrorize the Iraqi people and state,' Dana Stroul, research director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former Pentagon official, told Arab News. The mooted withdrawal of US troops comes more than 20 years after the US-led invasion of Iraq toppled Saddam Hussain, freeing the country from dictatorship, but ushering in a period of sectarian civil war. US forces were drawn into cycles of violence and routinely became the target of two mutually antagonistic sectarian forces: Iran-backed militias and an insurgency in which Al-Qaeda played a prominent role. When President Barack Obama took office in 2009, he vowed to end US involvement in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not without first ordering a massive troop surge in an attempt to salvage the mission. In Iraq, where more than 100,000 people were estimated to have died in the violence, there was widespread public anger at the American presence. In the US, the war was also deeply unpopular with thousands of American soldiers having been killed. Some American and Iraqi officials wanted to maintain a US military presence in the country, fearful of an Al-Qaeda resurgence. But attempts to negotiate an agreement for a reduced force failed and in October 2011 Obama announced that all of the remaining 39,000 US troops would be withdrawn by the end of that year, bringing a close to the mission. The US spent $25 billion on training and equipping Iraq's security forces up to September 2012, alongside Iraq's own spending on fighter jets and other advanced materiel. So it was something of a surprise that Iraqi forces were so quickly overrun when Daesh launched its offensive in 2014, having emerged from the remnants of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Images of Daesh fighters driving around in US armored vehicles captured from the Iraqi military symbolized how quickly Iraq's armed forces had deteriorated since the 2011 withdrawal. As the extent of Daesh's brutality began to emerge, including the slaughter of the Yazidi minority and the beheading of Western hostages on YouTube, the US ordered its forces back to the region, as part of an international coalition, to fight the extremists in both Iraq and Syria. After some of the most brutal urban warfare seen since the Second World War, Iraq's then-prime minister, Haider Al-Abadi, declared the territorial defeat of Daesh in December 2017. US forces continued to help their allies in Syria to defeat the extremists there in March 2019. By December 2021, US forces in Iraq no longer held combat roles, instead working on training, advisory, and intelligence support for the country's military. The remaining 2,500 US troops are spread between Baghdad, Irbil in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region, and Ain Al-Asad air base. However, soon after Al-Abadi's declaration of victory over the extremists, a new threat emerged in Iraq in the shape of Iran-backed militias, originally mobilized to help defeat Daesh. Having extended their reach over Sunni and Kurdish areas, these groups began attacking US bases with rockets and drones in a bid to force their immediate withdrawal. These attacks, sponsored by Iran's powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, prompted President Trump, during his first term, to order the killing of militia chief Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis and Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike on their motorcade as they left Baghdad Airport on Jan. 3, 2020. Soleimani's death was a major setback for Iran's proxies throughout the region, but the attacks on US positions did not subside. In fact, with the onset of the war in Gaza in October 2023, Iraq's Shiite militias mounted a fresh wave of strikes, ostensibly in support of Hamas. The deadliest of these occurred on Jan. 28, 2024, when three US personnel were killed and 47 wounded in a drone attack on Tower 22 just over the border in Jordan, prompting then-US president, Joe Biden, to order a wave of airstrikes on militia positions in Iraq. Mindful of the need to protect its proxies in Iraq, at a time where Lebanon's Hezbollah and Yemen's Houthis have been weakened and the sympathetic Assad regime in Syria has fallen, Iran appears to have forsworn further militia strikes on US forces. The latest agreement to end the US presence was reached in September last year with the aim of moving to a fully bilateral security partnership in 2026. Meanwhile, the US Defense Department announced in April it would be halving the number of troops in northeast Syria 'in the coming months.' An indication of Trump's aversion to the continued US military presence came during a speech in Saudi Arabia while on his tour of the Gulf in May when he decried 'Western interventionists.' A clear concern surrounding a US withdrawal is whether Iraq's security forces are now strong enough to withstand threats like the 2014 Daesh assault. The disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 is also no doubt fresh in the minds of defense officials. A recent report by the New Lines Institute think tank in New York said that a US withdrawal from Iraq would 'heavily impede the intelligence and reconnaissance collection, artillery, and command-and-control capabilities of Iraqi military forces.' The report studied quarterly independent audits for the US Congress between 2019 and 2024 to assess the capabilities of Iraqi forces. It looked at the three main forces in Iraq: the Iraqi Security Forces, Counter Terrorism Service, and the Kurdish Peshmerga. The report said: 'While segments of Iraq's military, such as the CTS and Kurdish security forces, have proven efficient in counterterrorism operations, several gaps exist in Iraq's conventional capabilities, including artillery, command and control, inter- and intra-branch planning, and trust.' The think tank said there were serious questions about whether Iraq's security forces would be able to 'hedge against internal and external challenges' in the absence of the US security umbrella. The report's co-author Caroline Rose, a director at New Lines, says the gaps in Iraqi capabilities 'could reverse over a decade of progress that Operation Inherent Resolve has made in Iraq.' 'If the objective is still to advance Iraqi forces' operational capacity, sustain gains against Daesh, and serve as a 'hedge' against Iranian influence, there is work still to be done,' she told Arab News. While Iraq has enjoyed a period of relative stability, the threats to its national security continue to lurk within and beyond its borders. The biggest fear is of a Daesh resurgence. Although the group has been severely depleted, it continues to operate cells in rural areas of Iraq and Syria, and has since made headway in Afghanistan, the Sahel, and beyond. 'Since January, the US military is still actively supporting the Iraqis,' said the Washington Institute's Stroul. 'There have been monthly operations against Daesh, including the killing of a senior leader in western Iraq. This tells us that Daesh is still a threat, and the US support mission is still necessary.' Another concern is that instability in Syria, where the embryonic, post-Assad government is facing significant security challenges, could again provide a breeding ground for Daesh that could spill across the border. 'There are still 9,000 Daesh detainees held in prison camps in northeast Syria,' said Stroul, adding that these present 'a real risk of prison breaks that will replenish Daesh ranks and destabilize Syria, Iraq, and the rest of the region. If the security situation deteriorates in Syria, this will have seriously negative impacts in Iraq.' And then there is the ongoing threat posed by Iran-backed militias. While these militias have been officially recognized as part of Iraq's security apparatus, some believe the US presence in Iraq helps keep them — and, by extension, Iran — in check. 'The staging of US forces and equipment, combined with a deep Iraqi dependence on American technical and advisory support, creates an obstacle and point of distraction for Tehran and its proxies,' Rose said. If the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq is inevitable, then how can Washington best prepare Iraq to go it alone? For Rose, the US should play a 'long game' to sustain security ties with Iraq and preserve the progress made under Operation Inherent Resolve. She recommended the US continue investing in Iraq's defense and security, conducting regular joint military exercises, and using its current presence in Irbil and Baghdad to build strong relations with security officials. She also advised other international bodies, like the NATO Mission-Iraq and the EU Advisory Mission Iraq, to coordinate closely with the US as the drawdown gets underway. Although the US appears set on pivoting away from the region to focus strategic attention on the Asia-Pacific, some still hope there could be a way for America to maintain some form of military presence, given the rapidly evolving situation in the wider Middle East. Reports earlier this year suggested some senior Iraqi politicians aligned with Iran privately want a US presence to continue, at least until ongoing US-Iran nuclear talks reach a conclusion. 'The US military mission is one of support, advice, and assistance by mutual consent of Baghdad and Washington,' Stroul, of the Washington Institute, said. 'If the Iraqi government invites the US military to remain for some period of time, there should be agreement on the supporting role that the US can play.' If Iraq hopes to maintain lasting stability, it needs to ensure its security forces can act alone to protect the country and population from internal and external threats. Continuing to work with the world's foremost military power, even in a limited capacity, would go some way to ensuring the horrors of 2014 are not repeated.
Al Arabiya
6 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
US says trade row with China could ease after Trump-Xi talks
A logjam in the trade talks between the United States and China could be broken once Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping speak, US officials said Sunday – a conversation they said could happen soon. Trump on Friday accused Beijing of violating a deal reached last month in Geneva to temporarily lower staggeringly high tariffs the world's two biggest economies had imposed on each other, in a pause to last 90 days. China's slow-walking on export license approvals for rare earths and other elements needed to make cars and chips have fueled US frustration, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday – a concern since confirmed by US officials. But US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent seemed to take the pressure down a notch on Sunday, telling CBS's 'Face the Nation' that the gaps could soon be bridged. 'I'm confident that when President Trump and Party Chairman Xi have a call that this will be ironed out,' Bessent said, however noting that China was 'withholding some of the products that they agreed to release during our agreement.' When asked if rare earths were one of those products, Bessent said, 'Yes.' 'Maybe it's a glitch in the Chinese system. Maybe it's intentional. We'll see after the president speaks with' Xi, he said. On when a Trump-Xi call could take place, Bessent said: 'I believe we will see something very soon.' Kevin Hassett, director of the White House's National Economic Council told ABC that the call could happen 'this week' but that he had no confirmation of a scheduled time. Since Trump returned to the presidency, he has slapped sweeping tariffs on most US trading partners, with especially high rates on Chinese imports. New tit-for-tat levies on both sides reached three digits before the de-escalation this month, where Washington agreed to temporarily reduce additional tariffs on Chinese imports from 145 percent to 30 percent. China, meanwhile, lowered its added duties from 125 percent to 10 percent. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told 'Fox News Sunday' that China was 'slow-rolling the deal,' adding: 'We are taking certain actions to show them what it feels like on the other side of that equation.' 'Our president understands what to do. He's going to go work it out,' Lutnick said. Lutnick also said that a US court battle over Trump's tariff strategy – one court's ruling to block the tariffs has been stayed pending an appeal – would ultimately end with a win for the president. 'Tariffs are not going away,' Lutnick said. 'We've got to be ready' Separate from the China deal, Trump said Friday he would double sector-specific tariffs on steel and aluminum to 50 percent starting June 4 – sparking ire from the European Union, which said it would retaliate. Hassett said China's dumping of low-cost steel was hurting US industry –which in turn was hindering US military preparedness. 'The bottom line is that we've got to be ready in case things don't happen the way we want, because if we have cannons but not cannonballs, then we can't fight a war,' Hassett told 'This Week.' 'And if we don't have steel, then the US isn't ready, and we're not preparing ourselves for something,' he added. 'We have to have a steel industry that's ready for American defense.'
