In 1997, I took part in an international conference hosted by an Arab country and organized by an American institute with global political interests.
There, I got the chance to meet distinguished American and Arab thinkers, officials, journalists, and strategic experts. The conference covered various topics related to governance, democracy, and globalization.
There were several noteworthy interventions. I recall the remarks of Paul Wolfowitz, who would go on to become an “architect” of the Iraq invasion during his tenure as US Deputy Secretary of Defense, and those of the brilliant American journalist and author Thomas Friedman. For their part, Arab intellectuals and academics made important contributions that enriched discussions, though they did not necessarily bridge the deep gap of “mistrust” between Washington and the Arab world.
In any case, I was especially struck by something Friedman said. He noted that he was often surprised, during his conversations with Arab politicians and intellectuals, by how “enchanted” they had been by the titles of American diplomats and envoys they had met.
Friedman continued: they would quote and recall every word those diplomats and envoys uttered as though it were gospel (!)... supreme will that cannot be challenged.
He explained that his interlocutors failed to realize that most of those who had “enchanted” them with their positions were in fact fleeting figures, and that most of them would be quickly forgotten once they completed their role. He went on to explain how many of their statements are either made to take a stance, to avoid revealing objectives whose time hasn’t yet come, or to distract from something that needs to be kept out of the spotlight... not to mention that they may simply reflect a personal opinion that does not bind their administration.
Today, Lebanon sees Tom Barrack in a similar light. The current US ambassador to Türkiye and the envoy assigned to handle the Syrian file is of Lebanese descent, and because of the deeply intertwined historical relationship between Syria and Lebanon, his every move and statement have been closely followed, both by the Lebanese public and by the Lebanese-American lobby.
As for the latest development regarding Envoy Tom Barrack, it came yesterday. The US State Department denied the “rumors” that had spread over the past two days about the termination of the Lebanese component of his mission and the reassignment of the Lebanon file to Morgan Ortagus, the former diplomat and intelligence analyst.
This American denial may temporarily lower the temperature of the chronic and recurring debate around Hezbollah’s weapons. However, it by no means suggests that the Donald Trump administration has a coherent strategic approach, be it in Lebanon or on other hot-button issues in the region.
Indeed, many observers still believe that Washington has no clear vision for how to manage international relationships, be it with allies or adversaries.
Besides the “tariff wars” and its naval fleets’ show of force, even Washington’s closest friends seem confused by an administration whose behavior is far more tactical than strategic.
One could say that this state of affairs had been expected from an administration led by President Trump, who has made personal loyalty and blind allegiance his primary criteria for political and diplomatic appointments.
And indeed, there are no towering intellectual or expert figures in the current administration, who are comparable to Dean Acheson, Henry Kissinger, Anthony Lake, Condoleezza Rice, Madeleine Albright, or Susan Rice. Even complex, complicated civilizational, historical, and geographical depth have been entrusted to friends, wealthy businessmen, and campaign donors. Steve Witkoff and Tom Barrack, who now find themselves navigating the complexities of the Middle East, are two glaring examples!
This “effective absence” of Washington could well open the region’s doors to the unknown.
Russia, for example, has not yet “fully retired.” It maintains its strategic footholds in northwestern Syria. Though it has just suffered a major setback, Iran remains capable of mounting challenges and disrupting plans. And Turkiye, which has just achieved a major victory with the shift in Damascus, may not settle for the backseat, especially if Israel’s regional influence grows and undermines what Ankara sees as its vital interests.
As for Israel, it sees an opportunity to extract as many gains as possible: This believe is born of several factors:
1. Exploiting the absence, or tacit blessing, of the United States (there’s little difference) in order to erase Palestine altogether, both as a people and as a cause.
2. The fact that the current regional climate, particularly in the Arab world, makes military confrontation against Benjamin Netanyahu’s expansionist ambitions untenable.
3. Netanyahu has sought to defend through offense, evading Israel’s domestic political crisis by hiding behind his unruly extremist allies who dream of a “Greater Israel” stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates.
4. Israel’s growing concern over the fractures that are beginning to appear in the alliance of extremists: the Zionist biblical fundamentalists and the white Christian evangelicals in the US. This alliance had been solidified since the presidency of Ronald Reagan, and it continued to consolidate under George W. Bush and the neoconservatives. However, the rising power of white evangelicals in Trump’s camp, alongside the increasingly racist tone of their discourse and the growing prevalence of the biblical backlash against the narrative of “anti-Semitism,” have recently alerted sensible American Jews to the dangers of leaning too strongly on this discourse. The excessive exploitation of the anti-Semitism has revived racism and brought back chilling memories of 1930s European Nazism to the collective consciousness.
Crises of this magnitude only grow deeper and more dangerous in the absence of conscious, fair, and strategic approaches, and when solutions are left in the hands of amateurs and passersby.
