When The Knights Start Falling: A View From Amman

Saleem Ayoub Quna
Opinion
February 23, 2026

By Saleem Ayoub Quna

Five years after his controversial disappearance from his cell in a Miami prison, Jeffry Epstein’s infamous legacy, remerges in unexpected ways and places.

His ex-clients, associates and “victims” are, one after the other, involuntarily, coming back to center stage, in no less embarrassing circumstances, than the ones they were, voluntarily, involved in in the first, hush-hush, part of this unfolding drama.

The released three million pages, certainly, harbor much more details about Epstein’s clandestine part of his empire, which he started in the late 1980s, and lasted for nearly three decades, than anyone could have anticipated, when Epstein was announced dead in 2019.

Potentially, it would take life-time assignment for brigades of investigators and researchers to turn every stone out of this huge pyramid of documents, i.e. more stunning information should be expected, more names of celebrities and heads of states could be queuing to be unmasked.

One of the most intriguing pieces of information revealed so far, yet not conclusively, is the one related to former Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak’s connection with Epstein.

While it is widely believed that Epstein was originally recruited by Israeli intelligence services the ‘Mossad’, to build this international web of contacts for reasons that are familiar to all, it is not clear why among other present or ex-Israeli officials, Ehud Barak’s name would pop out in the way it did!

When asked about it, Ehud Barak, admitted that he had good relations with Epstein that lasted for the period of 15 years, during which Epstein had hosted him in his Manhattan private residence on many occasions!

The question here is who, among these two men, was using the other? Or who was working for the other and being paid by him? Or was it that kind of swapping stuff, whose value could not be translated into cash, considering that Barak was not a playboy!

Then, other big names came out such as Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump and many other VIPs, who all expressed their regret to have known or been associated with Epstein! Why any one of them did not do that, the “expression of regret”, five years ago when Epstein died? Or did they think or hope that their, behind the doors, relationships with Epstein would be buried, simultaneously, with the burial of Epstein’s body?

But there are other big names that were associated with Epstein who, seemingly, did not have neither the time nor the will to express their regret to have known Epstein. A group of VIPs, whom I would like to nickname the “Knights” of a very special order; knights of hot nights who willingly fell into the well-orchestrated silk traps weaved by Epstein’s establishment. Instead they found themselves, practically, paying dear for their friendship with him.

One of the most prominent knights is no other than ex-Prince of the British throne, Andrew Mountbatten who certainly was a big fish caught in Epstein’s net. He, the ex-prince, also knew how to keep his mouth shut for 5 years. But now and after his royal title and embarrassing pictures popped out, the local British police dared to book him, in broad day light, for preliminary interrogation. His elder brother, the actual King Charles III, had but to consent to the idea that his younger playboy brother should be put on trial for what he did!

Other high status figures and “knights” who already fell off their, once immune little thrones; include: Jack Lang, the ex-French politician and Head of Arab World Institute in Paris, Peter Mandelson, from the British political establishment, the Labor Party, Mona Juul, a Norwegian ex- Ambassador, Alexander Acosta, the ex-US labor Secretary and lastly Sultan Ahmad bin Suleim, the UAE tycoon businessman.

From this angel the whole thing looks absurd and surreal: When you think how all those big names of movers and shakers of world affaires were united, by their free-will, to fall in the smallest trap hole ever known to mankind?

Saleem Ayoub Quna is a Jordanian author writing on local, regional and international affairs and has two books published. He has a BA in English Literature from Jordan University, a diploma from Paris and an MA from Johns Hopkins University in Washington.

Saleem Ayoub Quna

Opinion

Oslo: Strangling The Dove

Dr Khairi Janbek
May 10, 2026

By Dr Khairi Janbek

When we do a recap of the Oslo Agreements, they were a series of accords between Israel and the PLO signed in 1993. It was a process meant to lead to a permanent settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict within five year, including decisions on borders, refugees, security, Jerusalem and settlements.

But right from the start, voices were divided over the process, while for others, the whole idea had a built-in mechanism for failure from the start. The Palestinians started seeing that the Oslo Agreements were neither ending the establishment of Israeli settlements nor the end to occupation, while for the Israelis it didn’t seem to end their security concerns.

Indeed, it is pointless to think which comes first, the chicken or the egg, because two different fears and logistics persisted from the start. But also, it is important to think about the circumstances which brought about the idea of launching the process, and which did put the PLO in a tough position for being perceived as supporting the wrong side which lost; Iraq.

The room for manoeuvre for the late Yasser Arafat was very tight as he stood to lose the legitimacy of the PLO.

What one is trying to say is that, right from the start, outside official circles, many on the Palestinian side were against Oslo probably as many as was the case on the Israeli side.

The gradual erosion of Oslo mainly through the continued Israeli actions kept feeding extremism on both sides. Nevertheless, the concept was not revoked by any Israeli government because of its effect on Arab public opinion, pressure which is likely to block any peace initiative. Moreover, the international atmosphere was not conducive for such an initiative.

Having said that, one cannot claim that the international atmosphere is currently more indifferent to the abrogation of the Oslo, rather Israel seems to have more leeway in undertaking unilateral actions with more impunity.

Of course, it is not international law that can be counted on in this respect but rather, at least for the time being Donald Trump’s disapproval of the idea of annexing the West Bank by Israel. This is despite the fact that all the Israeli actions of dividing the West Bank from north to south first and currently from west to east, goes unnoticed. But the important thing has been till now, and don’t say the magic word, end of Oslo.

However, the recent development is that Israeli political parties, the partners in Netanyahu’s government are all pushing openly, for the abrogation of the Oslo agreements and cancelling out all the Israeli obligations towards it.

One can only say such an open declaration is a matter of principle by the Israeli government, because the changes on the ground are there for all to see. One supposes all parties are playing for time to see the end of the Palestinian national aspirations.

The columnist is a Jordanian writer based in Paris, France

Opinion

How Trump Burned Western Friendships

CrossFireArabia
May 7, 2026

By Jassem Al-Azzawi

Something remarkable is happening today in the corridors of western powers. America’s closest allies are no longer whispering their frustrations behind closed doors; they are now shouting them from the podiums of their parliaments and in press conferences. And US president Donald Trump is responding in kind. The transatlantic alliance, painstakingly built over eight decades, is now fracturing in a live broadcast.

The immediate cause is the American-Israeli war on Iran, launched on 28 February, 2026, without consulting NATO partners, United Nations, or even Washington’s closest friends. But the rift runs deeper than a single conflict; it reflects a strategy that is indifferent to its allies, or even openly contemptuous of them.

“The Americans clearly lack a strategy.”

The breaking point was starkly illustrated in the frank remarks made by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz to students in Marsberg, northwest Germany. Merz likened the conflict with Iran to past US failures in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“It’s clear the Americans don’t have a strategic plan,” he said, describing Washington’s approach as “ill-conceived.”

He went even further, suggesting that the US was being “humiliated” by Tehran’s negotiating tactics which is a stunning public accusation from a Chancellor who, until recently, was one of Washington’s most hawkish European allies.

Trump reacted furiously, writing on his TruthSocial platform that Merz “doesn’t know what he’s talking about” and threatening to reduce the number of US troops stationed in Germany, currently at 36,436. He then told the German chancellor to mind his own business:

“The Chancellor of Germany should spend more time ending the war between Russia and Ukraine, where he has been completely ineffective, and fixing his own battered country… rather than meddling in the affairs of those who are eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat.”

This verbal sparring is transcending all diplomatic norms and is shakening the foundations of the US-European axis.

Starmer: “I’m fed up,” he says publicly.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer invested considerable political capital in cultivating a working relationship with Trump, but that investment has now proven costly. When asked about Trump’s threats to destroy Iran, Starmer told ITV:

“These are not words I would ever use, because I speak from our British values and principles.”

The harshest language came when Starmer placed Trump alongside Vladimir Putin as partners in causing British economic hardship, telling Talking Points:

“I’m fed up with seeing families and businesses across the country struggling with fluctuating energy bills because of Putin’s or Trump’s actions around the world.”

On British military involvement, Starmer was unequivocal: “I will not change my mind, and I will not back down. It is not in our national interest to join this war, and we will not do so.” Trump rewarded this initial stance with a statement to The Sun newspaper: “Starmer has not been cooperative. The relationship is clearly not what it used to be,” he said.

Meanwhile, the International Monetary Fund underscored the scale of the material risks by lowering its 2026 growth forecast for Britain to 0.8 percent. This is a direct consequence of the energy shock Trump’s trade war has inflicted on British households.

Sanchez and Carney: Europe and Canada Draw a Line

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has emerged as the most vocal European leader in his criticism of Trump and his uncompromising stance. After Trump threatened to sever all trade ties with Madrid following Spain’s refusal to allow US troops to use the Rota and Morón air bases, Sanchez did not back down. When the ceasefire was announced, his judgment was scathing:

“A ceasefire is always good news, but this temporary relief cannot make us forget the chaos, destruction, and lives lost. The Spanish government will not applaud those who set the world ablaze just because they have finally appeared with a bucket of water.”

For his part, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney offered a broader structural indictment, stating in a speech at the Lowy Institute in Sydney:

“Geostrategically, dominant powers are increasingly acting without restraint or respect for international norms and laws, while others bear the consequences.”

He described the war as “a failure of the international order,” adding that “the United States and Israel acted without engaging the United Nations or consulting allies, including Canada.”

The alarm bells were not only ringing abroad; Senate Democrats launched a fierce campaign to reclaim congressional authority over a war they deemed illegal, unauthorized, and a diplomatic disaster.

Senator Tim Kaine’s diagnosis was accurate: “There was no clear justification, no clear plan, and no effort to engage allies or Congress. When you make diplomacy impossible, you make war inevitable.”

Senator Chris Murphy was even more blunt.

“We have never seen a foreign conflict so publicly mismanaged. We have become a laughingstock around the world, while hurting Americans who are now paying billions more in fuel prices.” Senator Tammy Duckworth linked the current disaster to America’s post-World War II pattern, saying:

“Our duty is to ensure that our nation never again slides into an endless, self-serving war.” Despite this, all six war powers resolutions introduced by the Democrats failed due to Republican loyalty to Trump, even as the war cost the lives of 13 Americans in its first month and the price of a gallon of gasoline reached $4.30.

Time for reckoning has come…

Whether Trump’s antagonism toward allies is a strategic dismantling or simply the impulsiveness of a leader who confuses aggression with strength, the result is the same. He threatened to withdraw from NATO, imposed trade sanctions on Spain, threatened to withdraw troops from Germany, and pushed the “special relationship” with Britain to the brink of collapse. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s warning also came to light.

Trump will “re-examine” Washington’s commitments to allies who did not support the war, as a declaration of “conditional friendship.”

America’s friends are being pushed away, its adversaries are watching, and the West, for the first time since 1945, is genuinely unsure whether it can rely on Washington.

Jassem Al-Azzawi is an Iraqi writer and journalist who contributed this article to the Arabic website, Al Rai Al Youm and appears in Crossfirearabia.com.