In the newspaper round on Thursday, an article examined the new American approach to the Middle East in light of Trump’s sudden statement to halt aid to Israel, and another article explored how to manage American affairs in a highly polarized atmosphere between Trump and the Democratic Party, and finally, what does it mean for Western Muslims to elect the first Muslim senator in the history of the United States of America?
We begin our tour with the American Wall Street Journal and an article by the American writer, academic, and political consultant William A. Galston, during which he attempts to monitor "the most important change in American policy towards the Middle East in more than half a century."
This new approach boils down to the need for every country in the Middle East to take care of its own affairs without relying on any American aid, in light of President Donald Trump’s statement on Tuesday of his intention to end American military aid to Israel by the end of this year.
The article highlights the statements of Thomas Barrack, the US ambassador to Turkey and special envoy to Syria and Iraq, before the “Global Security Forum” in Doha, Qatar two weeks ago, when he said: “America’s role no longer exists as a guarantor of the world, which is the role it has played over the past eighty years.”
As for the Middle East, this, according to the article, means that the Gulf states can no longer rely on the American security umbrella, in an “erosion of guarantees” that began “at least” since 2019, through Trump’s policy of attacks by the Ansar Allah Houthi group in Yemen on Saudi Arabia.
However, the US ambassador’s statement, according to the article, “officialized this transformation” when he said: “Everyone in the region assumed that with the presence of America - with the sale of oil and gas in dollars, the purchase of weapons with dollars, and the hosting of American military bases - they would guarantee freedom of maritime navigation and obtain security guarantees. But suddenly, the situation was no longer like that.”
Instead, Barak indicated that the United States would support regional efforts such as the “Mecca Charter,” the security agreement between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan, stressing that “everyone must build their own regional alliances.”
The American approach in this context was recently demonstrated by Trump’s rejection of direct American military intervention at the request of the Saudi Crown Prince, but he offered to provide intelligence support and assistance in identifying targets.
The American ambassador explained that military action against forces such as the Houthis has not proven effective in the past, saying, "America's involvement in an actual ground battle elsewhere seems futile."
The article believes that this will push many countries that host American bases to question the usefulness of the American presence, especially if it makes them targets for Iran and its agents without providing them with security.
The United States may even ask itself a similar question, after at least 21 Americans were killed, hundreds injured, and billions of dollars in damage was caused to American bases this year.
There is another transformation that “deserves attention,” according to the article; Barak explicitly ruled out the idea of “regime change” as a goal of the new US policy in the region, saying: “We have witnessed 23 regime change operations, none of which have succeeded. And every time we try to intervene to change a person or a regime, it seems that it was a mistake.”
Although Trump called for regime change at the beginning of the current confrontation with Iran, Barak's statement indicated the exclusion of this option as a goal for any future American military action against Tehran, describing the Iranian regime as "a religious theocratic regime, not an evil regime."
Trump and the Democrats face a "divided government"
We turn to the American newspaper The Washington Post, and an article by its editorial board explores how to manage the affairs of the United States after the American people chose a system of “divided government.” President Trump and the Democrats who seized control of Congress in the recent elections, each of them belongs to a different political trend.
"A clash is inevitable; Democrats are promising tough oversight that could include issuing subpoenas to members of the president's family," the article asserts, while Trump has stated that he will veto "everything" if his opponents win, saying: "I think I'll be Mr. Veto."
This rift will be evident, according to the article, for example in the Democrats’ attempt to come up with a resolution on war powers to stop the conflict with Iran and cancel tariffs, but Trump may use his veto power.
The article does not believe that the two-thirds majority required to override the veto will be available. Because Congress's restriction of the president's powers would likely require the defection of a large number of Republicans, which is difficult with Trump's ability to "destroy the career of any Republican politician who opposes him," which will make him "enjoy enormous influence within his party" even though his popularity at the national level is "at its lowest levels."
The article warns that voters who voted for Trump two years ago and then supported the Democrats in the midterm elections may change their allegiance again, unless the Democrats win their support and the support of independents by focusing on issues that affect the pockets of citizens, such as health care, crime, and immigration, in a task that the article describes as “extremely difficult.”
As for Trump, he may use political settlements with the Democrats. If the Democrats pass a bill to increase support for insurance premiums within the framework of the “Affordable Care Act,” Trump may agree to sign it in exchange for obtaining “a concession that interests him,” according to the article.
While Democrats will take an offensive stance regarding the investigations, party leaders are privately indicating that they do not want to impeach Trump for a third time, even if they believe he deserves it.
Finally, there is an issue that urgently calls for finding common ground, which is the “fiscal cliff” that America is approaching. Projections are that Social Security's main trust fund will become insolvent by mid-2032.
Both Trump and Democratic leaders appear to show no desire to reach a comprehensive agreement on reforming social benefits programs. Failure to act would be disastrous, as retirees would face an automatic reduction in their benefits by 26 percent.
The article suggests that Trump and the Democrats will be content to leave this impasse to the next president, but the senators elected on Tuesday will remain in office when the trust fund is unable to fulfill its obligations.
“Are you from us or from them?”
We conclude our tour with the British newspaper The Independent, and an article by the British-Afghan broadcaster and content creator Shabnam Nasimi, who highlighted that the results of the American midterm elections changed the stereotypical image taken about Muslims, especially after the events of September 11, 2001.
She says that every Muslim who grew up in the West, in one way or another, faced a question about his affiliation: “Are you one of us, or one of them?” This is a question that Senator Abdel Rahman Al-Sayyid from Michigan faced during the elections on the authority of President Trump, who frightened voters of him. The voters responded by choosing him to become the first Muslim elected to the US Senate.
Before the elections, Trump had described Abdel-Rahman Al-Sayyid as a “jihadist” who needed a “metal detector,” meaning weapons, before he entered the Senate. He summoned to the podium the father of one of the September 11 victims, saying, “Michigan must stand up and fight, just as Todd did, to prevent a jihadist from entering the Capitol building.”
In the final debate between the candidates, Mike Rogers, the Republican Party candidate in Michigan, asked Abdul Rahman Al-Sayed whether he was “with America” or “with terrorist groups abroad,” in reference to the Muslim Brotherhood. “The question was intended to prompt voters to ask whether a Muslim is trustworthy.”
The article stresses that the most important thing that happened with Al-Sayyed’s victory was the fact that he was evaluated based on his positions and the principles and ideas he adopted, not on his background. And if he fails to deal with any issue, “he will be held accountable as a senator, not as a Muslim. This is true success.”
