THE BEGINNING OF ISRAELI CONCERN ABOUT TRUMP
Al-Ahram, Egypt, March 8
US PRESIDENT Donald Trump’s latest surprise to the world – and Israel likely wasn’t excluded from this revelation – is that a representative of his administration has been holding secret direct negotiations with Hamas for weeks in Doha!
This marks an unprecedented move for an American administration, as the United States officially designated Hamas as a terrorist organization in 1997. The White House confirmed the news, stating that Adam Boehler, the American envoy for hostages, holds full authority to negotiate directly with Hamas.
Following the release of the news, Netanyahu’s office quickly issued a statement emphasizing that Israel had been aware of the negotiations from the outset and had raised concerns with the American side at the time. However, the statement did not detail those concerns.
On the other hand, Israeli sources denied prior knowledge of the talks, expressing concern about the potential outcomes of negotiations that, despite being deeply tied to Israel’s core interests, have proceeded without its involvement.
Israel has long been accustomed to being the key player in such diplomatic moves, given its historic relationship with previous American administrations.
Early reports suggest that the negotiations focus on securing the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas who also hold American citizenship, with some reports claiming the talks are expanding to include a temporary or even permanent ceasefire.
Despite these reports, there is no concrete evidence that an agreement has been reached on any of these issues. This is indicated by the decision made by Steve Witkoff, the special envoy to the Middle East, to delay his arrival in the region, seemingly waiting for an agreement that could be presented as a Trump administration victory.
The key takeaway here, especially given the likelihood that the US will exclude Israel from the consultations, is that Trump is showing a distinct lack of interest in involving anyone – even close allies – in major decisions in which they have a vested interest.
He has done this with the Europeans, particularly on Ukraine, where his approach to negotiating a major settlement with Russia transcends both Ukraine’s borders and broader European concerns.
When it comes to Hamas, Trump has repeatedly stated that he has sent Israel everything it needs to achieve its mission, suggesting that his direct involvement is justified due to Israel’s failure to accomplish its objective of releasing the hostages on its own. – Ahmed Abdel-Tawwab
WHAT IS TRUMP’S PLAN FOR CANADA AND GREENLAND?
Asharq al-Awsat, London, March 7
There is something suspicious behind the White House’s recent demand to annex Canada and Greenland.
Canada, the country geographically and politically closest to the United States, now has Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accusing President Donald Trump of attempting to destroy his country’s economy in order to take it over. Meanwhile, Denmark has rejected Trump’s interest in acquiring Greenland, saying it will not give in.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, meanwhile, finds himself caught in the Oval Office, negotiating what Ukraine must sacrifice or retain in its ongoing conflict with Russia.
Simple explanations suggest that Trump is a showman, hungry for attention, or seeking to distract Americans with foreign issues while he dismantles the federal government from within. But this explanation does not hold up.
A closer examination of Trump’s actions suggests he may be pursuing a grand project that reflects his campaign promise to “Make America Great Again.” This slogan, emblazoned on walls, T-shirts, and banners during his election, is more than just a catchy phrase.
I don’t subscribe to conspiracy theories, which I believe are simply a lazy way of explaining what people fail to understand about the world. It seems to me that Trump has a far-reaching plan, one that aligns with his ambition to become the greatest president in American history – comparable to George Washington, during whose presidency the United States was founded.
Trump has made no secret of his desire to annex or unite with Canada and Greenland. But what would that mean, were it to happen?
Look at the map. Canada is slightly larger than the United States, measuring around 10 million square kilometers, while Greenland, the world’s largest island, spans more than 2 million square kilometers. Combining the territories of both would double the size of the United States, increasing its total area to about 22 million square kilometers, making it larger than Russia and twice the size of China.
But this is not simply about bragging rights. Merging these three closely connected countries would give the US a significant geopolitical advantage and increase its economic power.
Of course, it’s unlikely Trump would attempt to seize Canada or Greenland by force, for many reasons, not the least of which is that in the American system, it is Congress – not the president – that declares war.
Trump has never stated, nor is he likely to state, an intention to use military force, though he has shown a keen sense of Machiavellian strategy. He has repeatedly suggested he would be willing to buy Greenland and even attempt to convince its inhabitants to vote for independence from Denmark.
CANADA, HOWEVER, remains the ultimate prize. Trump has already made overtures to Trudeau, even addressing the Canadian people directly to call for unity, but to no avail.
Now, Trudeau accuses Trump of raising tariffs on Canadian imports as a deliberate attempt to weaken the Canadian economy in preparation for a future annexation. This may hold some truth, but it could also be a legal annexation, following a constitutional referendum.
Let’s not forget that Canada relies heavily on its neighbor’s market: about 75% of its exports go to the US, and nearly a quarter of its national income comes from it.
What about Trump’s European allies, whom he has alienated with unprecedented tariffs, pushing their economies toward recession and sparking internal political unrest? Trump argues that his tariffs treat them the same as other trading partners. And while many may oppose his expansionist projects and his closer ties with Russia, there is also an element of trade negotiation at play here.
The final obstacle lies in opposition from Russia and China. Any idea of expansion or unification by mutual consent would be seen as a direct threat by both countries.
Even if an agreement were reached for the annexation of Canada and Greenland, it wouldn’t be enough to pacify Russia and China, especially given the ongoing desires of Eastern European nations like Ukraine, Georgia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina to join NATO and the European Union – countries that have yet to be admitted, to avoid angering Russia.
THEREFORE, friendly expansion would require geopolitical compromises to prevent these powers from making aggressive moves of their own, potentially igniting large-scale conflict.
This, however, is merely a hypothesis. I believe Trump, or his advisers, may be operating on a strategy they have dubbed “friendly geographic expansion,” which would require a series of global geopolitical agreements.
A potential understanding with Russia, which borders Greenland, could help justify Trump’s dealings with Ukraine and potentially lead to an agreement on the roughly 20% of Ukrainian territory that Russia has seized.
Such a solution could end the war in Ukraine, reduce losses, and appease Moscow, thereby paving the way for the next steps in America’s friendly expansion.
Some will no doubt oppose this plan, as it mirrors the expansionist ideas of colonial powers, a notion that could revive fears of imperialism.
Historically, the US was itself a colony, and it was the one to oppose colonialism in the world.
President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points, which called for the end of colonialism, were largely realized after World War II, with Washington applying pressure on its allies, such as Britain and France, to relinquish their colonies, including in the Arab world. – Abdulrahman Al-Rashed
WESTERN-ARAB RELATIONS WITH THE MIDDLE EAST
Okaz, Saudi Arabia, March 7
The relationship between the West and the Middle East is a complex one, rife with contradictions and conflicting interests. While Western powers claim to separate religion from politics, their foreign policies are often shaped by historical narratives and ideologies that carry a sense of sanctity. This dynamic is driven by material interests and a desire for dominance, often resulting in violations of international law and humanitarian norms.
A glaring example is the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which was widely condemned for disregarding the principles of sovereignty and international law. Similarly, the economic blockade of Cuba highlights a sanctions policy aimed at weakening countries outside of Western influence.
When it comes to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the West continues to tolerate human rights violations committed by Israel, which contradicts the democratic and human rights values it claims to uphold. However, it is important to recognize that the West itself is not monolithic, with some countries adopting more balanced positions on these issues.
The roots of Western relations with the Middle East trace back to the colonial era, when European powers sought to control the region’s resources. Over time, Western policies have exacerbated existing tensions, often intertwining with internal and regional factors. These policies, driven by economic and political interests, have had lasting negative consequences.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, for instance, had a profound impact on demarcating the region’s political borders, which fueled long-term conflicts. Additionally, the Cold War intensified regional tensions, as the US and the Soviet Union used the Middle East as a battleground for indirect conflict.
Western economic policies, particularly those focusing on oil and gas after the early 20th-century discovery of oil in the region, have exploited Arab nations’ natural resources and manipulated their economies. These policies, through institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, have harmed local economies and deepened the region’s dependency on the West.
The use of religious and ideological rhetoric in foreign policy also became prominent after the events of September 11, 2001, when the “war on terrorism” was used as a pretext for widespread military interventions. Furthermore, Western media have played a key role in shaping the stereotypical image of the Middle East, influencing public opinion and foreign policy. Pressure groups, particularly the Israeli lobby in the US, have effectively used this narrative to sway American decision-making in the region.
However, alternatives and solutions for the region are within reach. Enhancing economic integration among Arab nations, such as through the creation of a common Arab market, could be a key starting point. Shifting focus from a reliance on natural resources to building knowledge-based economies through education and innovation is another crucial step.
Additionally, promoting dialogue between civilizations and cultures could help reduce misunderstandings and foster more balanced relationships.
Arab countries must focus on increasing regional cooperation and building strategic partnerships to confront both external and internal challenges. Simultaneously, the West must reassess its policies in the region, ensuring that they respect human rights and adhere to principles of justice. – Osama Yamani
A CHANGING INTERNATIONAL WORLD ORDER
Al-Ittihad, UAE, March 9
The international order is undergoing a transformation. What was once confined to theoretical speculation is increasingly becoming a practical reality. The growing rapprochement between two major global powers, the United States and Russia, and their shared willingness to end the war in Ukraine, is accelerating the shift from possibility to near certainty.
This is especially true if peace can be brokered without reverting to the post-World War II framework, which saw the division of the world into Western and Eastern blocs, underpinned by two military alliances: NATO and the Warsaw Pact, the latter of which dissolved with the fall of the Soviet Union.
It remains unclear whether this warming of relations will result in a new alliance or agreement, or merely a pragmatic understanding of mutual interests, outside the sphere of armed conflict that the world has intermittently experimented with in the past. However, one thing is certain: if the current US-Russia approach endures and yields tangible outcomes, the path toward changing the international system will take a significant and qualitative turn, setting the stage for further developments.
Initial discussions between the two powers have not been confined to Ukraine but have also addressed European security and the potential for Russian mediation in the Iranian nuclear crisis. A central Russian goal in the Ukraine conflict has been to reshape the security framework embodied by NATO, aiming to halt its expansion into Eastern Europe.
This system was initially based on two pillars: one defensive, aimed at countering the Russian (then Soviet) threat, and the other ideological, presenting a stark choice between the “free world” and totalitarian regimes. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, which symbolized a victory for the Western capitalist bloc and a defeat for the socialist camp, the future of NATO has been a point of contention.
THE RAPID pace of German reunification and the exit of many Eastern European nations from Soviet influence led the United States and its Western allies to settle on a clear response: as long as the “threat” remained, NATO would continue to absorb and protect the newly liberated countries. However, this expansion has in turn become a perceived threat to the Russian Federation.
Periodic attempts at controlling this danger through US-NATO-Russian agreements have failed, and Ukraine’s push for NATO membership was seen by Russia as crossing a strategic redline.
From his first term, President Donald Trump expressed a desire to resolve the Ukrainian conflict and foster closer ties with Russia. At the time, the primary issue was Russia’s annexation of Crimea, but today, with Russia having seized 20% of Ukrainian territory, the war has reached an impasse, which has bolstered Trump’s argument that continued funding only serves to perpetuate the conflict.
This marks a distinct departure from the strategy of weakening Russia articulated by the Joe Biden administration and adopted by NATO. With the acceleration of normalization between Washington and Moscow, the imposition of the minerals agreement on Ukraine, and increasing pressure on its president, the Trump administration has brought about the beginning of a “neutralization of NATO.”
For the first time in 80 years, Europe, despite its internal divisions, is finding itself compelled to rely on its own resources to ensure its security, as the American security umbrella is gradually fading.
Change is still in its early stages, but it is likely to gain momentum with the conclusion of the war in Ukraine, based on its field outcomes – essentially, regardless of the sovereignty and legitimacy standards set by international law.
In this context, the ideological foundation of the Western liberal order will face further challenges: on one hand, the decline of the values articulated in the United Nations Charter may become more pronounced at the global level; on the other hand, the far-right movement in Europe will continue to rise, as it increasingly becomes the nexus between Trumpism and Putinism. – Abdulwahab Badrakhan
Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb. All assertions, opinions, facts, and information presented in these articles are the sole responsibility of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of The Media Line, which assumes no responsibility for their content.