As I followed the state of regional and international politics with sorrow, I was reminded of the saying attributed to Imam al-Shaabi. Speaking about the four “masterminds of the Arabs,” he said that “The masterminds of the Arabs are four: Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan for patience and deliberation; Amr ibn al-As for handling difficult matters, that is, wise conduct and solving every problem that stands in his way; Al-Mughira ibn Shu'ba for quick wit and prompt action; and Ziyad ibn Abihi for matters great and small, meaning planning, firmness, and decisiveness.”
At one point in history, a rational minority with these qualities sharing a common goal helped establish the nucleus of an empire whose civilization stretched from China to Western Europe. Yet if we look at great powers, past and present alike, we find them troubled and unstable. Broad national consensus has collapsed before extremist nationalist or separatist ambitions. The “state of institutions,” which was built upon and strengthened by those consensuses, has been shaken. Individual calculations have overtaken the priority of the common good.
Here, to borrow a medical expression, domestic “blood purification” may have lost its efficacy, threatening a lethal condition of septicemia, blood poisoning. Today, this manifests itself in various forms, wherever we turn among influential international and regional blocs.
In Britain, for example, many no longer believe in an exceptional innate wisdom enabling them to overcome crises and avoid recklessness. The “fall” embodied by Brexit, which was built upon populist illusions and selfishness, showed that this great nation is not necessarily more rational than others. Today, we are witnessing the collapse of stability that had once been ensured for decades by the alternation of power between long-established institutional and interest-based parties, while fascist, populist, and idealistic movements have begun shaking the pillars of British democracy as we once knew it.
The situation in other European democracies, where we see fears for their internal social fabric and for the fate of Eastern Europe amid Russia’s rise, is not very different. Yet the most significant shift, in my opinion, is unfolding in the United States, especially when considering Washington’s importance in determining the fate of our Arab world, particularly the Levant.
Yesterday, many people were struck by President Donald Trump’s absence from the wedding of his son, Donald Trump Jr., in the Bahamas. Naturally, speculation immediately spread about the “grave development” behind it. But aside from such speculation, two notable resignations were recorded.
The first resignation is that of Julie Davis, chargé d’affaires at the US Embassy in Ukraine, who decided to leave the post to which she had been appointed less than a year ago, amid reports of disagreements with the administration over Ukraine. Davis is the second senior diplomat to resign from her position in Kyiv. Before her, Ambassador Bridget Brink had resigned in protest against what she saw as President Trump’s “appeasement” of Moscow and the European implications of this appeasement.
The second resignation was that of the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. Although Gabbard, a Polynesian Hindu and former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, explained her resignation by citing the deteriorating health of her ill husband, numerous rumors circulated regarding her standing within the Trump administration. Her departure, in fact, marked the fourth resignation of an official overseeing politically sensitive and important matters, following the resignations of Attorney General Pam Bondi, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer.
Experts and commentators attribute the “lack of stability” within the Trump team to deep disagreements - some personal, others strategic, and still others influenced by external motives and factors, such as ties with Israel and calculations involving Russia.
A superpower like the United States has a vast array of interests in every region of the world. To deal with each situation effectively, there must be a highly capable network of specialists on the one hand, and on the other, a coherent and harmonious “central team” skilled in coordination, integration, and crisis management.
Our Arab region alone - far removed from Washington’s “preoccupations” with Cuba, Canada, and Greenland - raises enormous complexities that do not allow for “trial and error.” Nor can they tolerate assumptions built on misconceptions or interests inspired by a third party.
Years ago, the “neoconservatives” in the administration of George W. Bush mocked the “nation-building” policy of the “Clinton Doctrine” and subsequently worked to undermine it. Later, Republicans hardened this approach against the policies of Barack Obama during Trump’s presidencies. What is important to recognize here is that the world feels more at ease when it senses consistency in Washington’s approach.
It is extremely important to have a “combat doctrine” to distinguish between your enemy and your friend, adversary and ally. For without a genuinely coherent strategy, international instability will only aggravate and problems will turn into catastrophes.
