Dr Khairi Janbek, Author at CrossFireArarbia

Hammering The UN?

Dr Khairi Janbek
February 25, 2026

By Dr Khairi Janbek

Even from the moment of its inception, the UN was subjected to constant criticism and derision. Though it started as a coalition of the willing in order to deal with differences and sources of conflict in a peaceable and/or diplomatic manner, the term willing remained nebulous.

The strong and mighty wanted to bend this will to suit their interests, and the weak and the needy wanted to bend this will for their own protection. Still in this dialectical formula the need for the UN remains as the only viable formula which offers the possibility of negotiations in the Churchillian wisdom of jaw jaw, better than war war, and it remains in this sense, the standard which provides the vaneer for international legality and the semblance of consensus.

Then suddenly and apparently, the concept of the Donald Trump Board of Peace emerged on the scene, thought of, initially, as an effort to deal with the mayhem of Gaza, and to which one may add ironically and cynically, that the most two concerned parties – Palestinians and Israelis – are out of its functioning. On top of this, the notion was propelled in the media that this Board is really an attempt to replace the UN.

So in this context we can assume what is meant is that if the UN started, all these years ago, as a coalition of the willing, today’s Board of Peace is a coalition of the frightened, of states who want to stay on the good side of Trump. This is aside from the reluctant opportunists whom seek some benefits out of becoming a member of this entity.

On the face of it, one can say that the real purpose of its establishment is not to replace the United Nations per se, but a serious attempt to bypass the UN and redefine international relations in accordance with the Trump notion of who is the enemy of peace and who is its friends, with the essential outlook of not needing the international organization at all. Under the new legality, it is Trump who lays down the law, and the one whom distributes the spoils. As for the UN it remains in his eyes as a gathering for losers.

But if we go back to the beginning, in fact the Board of Peace, not only got the blessing of the UN for its creation, but also the support of the Security Council with resolution 2038, but then again, it was linked to the reconstruction and ‘stabilization’ of Gaza, while the current format of the Board emerged on the sidelines of the recent World Economic Forum meetings.

Now irrespective of some in the international community wanting to spite Trump or of waning his influence, there is a serious and big concern that President Trump and the fact that he is presiding over this Board, will mean that the talked about peace will be the peace of the strong imposed by the strong. In itself this rings many alarm bells on the strategic level for many regions in the world about the kind of peace Trump is talking about.

Among the myriad of world conflicts, currently the Palestinian problem, Ukraine war, and Iran, stand out as the most deadly and critical. So in what shape the proposed peace will come?

Dr Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris.

Analyses

Donald’s War Bells

Dr Khairi Janbek
February 2, 2026

By Dr Khairi Janbek

When talking about the stand off between the US and Iran, in fact, anything can happen on the kaleidoscope of endless talks to an endless war. Usually it is possible to predict the reaction of one collective or another with some knowledge, but impossible to predict the reaction of an individual no matter what knowledge is available.

This is especially the case if this individual is Donald Trump. He makes it his business to be unpredictable and depending who tells him what and whether he likes it or not; but at least we can attempt to drive some inference from the situation, a situation which finds the current American president who heavily criticized his predecessors for dragging the United States into protracted wars with dubious results.

In this sense, the operative term is a short and decisive war, which is unclear in terms of what duration in order to be decisive about what? From the term, short and decisive, President Trump seems to know what he wants, which we can pontificate on in a myriad of possibilities, however, and for all intents and purposes, it can only mean a campaign of targeting the current leadership, civilian, military and security, coupled with targeting Iran’s missile and nuclear capabilities.

Alternatively, for a leader obsessed with reality show image, he wishes to drag Iran to the negotiations table, which is not supposed to appear as a negotiations table, rather a table which will show a supposedly humiliated Iran, accepting the terms of the Washington administration: Those terms being a peaceful nuclear programme under close international supervision, no missile development programme, and stopping its support to its current regional proxies.

But the snag in all those plans,seems to be based on the reports indicating that the president has been told, that in order for the war to be decisive, it’s not likely to be a short one, which puts Trump in the conundrum of dragging the US into a protracted war on many other fronts, ranging from Iran to Iraq to Yemen. One is not saying at all that the US military cannot handle it, rather how costly will be the confrontation with Iran and its proxies be to achieve a decisive objective, which Trump desires to achieve in a short war?

In effect, if he does go to war at this point the objective has to change, and the meaning of decisive has also to change, meaning it would have to be regime change, knowing only too well, that there is no viable political alternative to the Mullahs except the Shah of Iran, which Trump doesn’t seem to be too keen on, and no one else in the region; for they are not much qualified to deal with day of regime change in Iran.

Also from an economic point of view: How long can a standing navy fleet stay on alert for war. The matter is not only psychological, but rather financial, as the moving of such a sizable war machine costs millions of dollars, now, if there are sponsors for this big operation and whom are willing to pay the expenses, then the US navy, similar to its Venezuelan operations, can encircle Iran and confiscate its oil shipments in the high seas , but if the US is paying for this big operation, then it won’t be long before we hear about a war breaking out.

Opinion

Trump’s Nightmare Triangle

Dr Khairi Janbek
October 26, 2025

By Dr Khairi Janbek

For all intents and purposes, US President Donald Trump is presenting himself as the arbiter of Arab-Israeli relations, and/or Arab-Israeli conflict and showing his presence as the patron for the time being, of the Gaza agreement. Therefore, no one, including Israel will be allowed to make him look bad in this multi-phased accord.

Most likely, his intention to reign in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and rejecting the Israeli rejection of the West Bank, boils down to keeping the Arabs on board in terms of money and influence for the success of his Gaza plan, as well as keeping his hopes alive for the Abrahamic Accords especially the red apple, Saudi-Israeli normalization.

Indeed Trump’s ambiguous stand of rejecting a Palestinian state while at the same time, rejecting Israeli annexation, either means giving the positive nod to Tel Aviv to create facts on the ground and create de facto annexation without the fanfare, and start the gradual population transfer, if we take Gaza as a precedence for his words, to Jordan and probably also to the wider Arab world, or, it could also be, that the future of the West Bank is intended to be united to the East Bank of River Jordan.

In the mean time, the world press talks about the continuous shuttle diplomacy of high-ranking Washington officials to Israel, and Trump’s warnings to Netanyahu, veiled as well explicit not to attempt to jeopardize the Gaza peace, to the extent of saying that Israel would lose all US support.

But what about the other side of this presumed potential rift? Netanyahu after two years of war, has nothing to show for it to the Israelis except barbarism, murder and destruction, in addition to gaining the status of becoming a fullyfledged international war criminal.

The war which he declared to finish off Hamas is increasingly controlled by the American plans, now, face a big failure with him reluctantly having to put up with. However it does not necessarily mean there are no other parties in his government, whose messianic fervour does not override the risk of losing American support, which indeed means, Netanyahu is now stuck between the rock and the hard place.

Indeed one cannot predict his longevity as the prime minister for Israel, but all what can be said is that, the alternative to him, is neither likely to be more peace loving, or more liberal in political outlook.

Dr Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris, France

Opinion

Hamas, Trump and The Gaza Gamble

Dr Khairi Janbek
October 4, 2025

By Dr Khairi Janbek

One can only have a distant view of the current developments regarding the war on Gaza, and consequently in all honesty, a bird’s eye view of the situation. For all intense and purposes, one assumes the Hamas acceptance of plan presented by US president Donald Trump would represent extremely high-stakes gamble for them.

On the one hand it offers a pathway to end the bloodshed and set the road for reconstruction of the bludgeoned Gaza Strip. On the other hand, the plan demands existential concessions, loss of armaments, leverage, and an an end to the movement’s future. If Hamas accepts with sincerity, and the plan is implemented faithfully, it could mark a turning point towards stabilization, but also with risks of breakdown, backlash, internal splits, and which carry the warnings of a precarious road ahead.

It is important in the meantime to advise against the search for victors and/or the vanquished, because in this time and age, wars do not seem to be launched in order to be decisive, and the view of the Gaza war is no different. Essentially it is to be believed and cardinal to the Trump administration, the issue of arms pertaining to Hamas and Hezbullah are seen as obstacles to peace and to Israel’s normalization with the Arab world. Therefore, the objective, one imagines, is to eliminate those arms to the American administration which has wider objectives in this crucial region of the world.

Here, as well, one has to be careful with words. Is Hamas supposed to surrender all of its weapons, or will there be an accommodating plan for the Islamic movement to keep some of its weapons, so long as it is not seen to constitute any future threat?

On the other side of the equation, are we really at the juncture of seeing the total end of Hamas as an organisation? In other words, are we about to see an amnesty for the Hamas fighters, especially those who surrender their weapons and are willing to partake in the future plans for Gaza away from those who wish to leave and to be provided with a safe passage outside the Gaza enclave?

Or is there a plan within the plan. if indeed, the Trump plan is not in essence a diktat, will there be long and tedious negotiations that will accept a form of political participation for a future-transformed Hamas into less than a political organization and more than an NGO?

Then what about the role of the Arab and Islamic countries, whose leaders met with Trump during the last UN General Assembly and who subsequently welcomed Hamas acceptance of the Trump plan? After all, there is the supposition that Arab and Islamic countries will provide, if not brain, then money and brawn. Essentially, without Arab and to a lesser extent Islamic involvement, no plan will have a leg to stand on. But to what extent the Arabs are willing to get involved still remains to be seen.

Dr Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris.

Opinion

Palestine – The Story Begins

Dr Khairi Janbek
September 22, 2025

By Dr Khairi Janbek

Regarding the recognition of a Palestinian state, the Montevideo Agreement of 1933 stipulates that a recognized state must have a permanent population, defined boundaries, a government, and the ability to enter into relations with other states.

Now one feels responsible, at least responsibility to oneself to say that the Arab people felt being let down for decades and generations filled with disappointments, which led to their constant skepticism as the result of their modern history and perpetual doubt as well as self-doubt.

When it came to the Palestinian issue, they forgot their own contribution also to the transformation of the problem from being a political question par excellence into a humanitarian crisis, human rights and refugees.

Somehow, it appears to me, that many in the Arab world are stunned by the recent developments of recognizing Palestine, to an extent to not knowing how to deal with the question of Palestine restored to its rightful place as a political question after so many years of outbursts of emotions, wailing and crying.

We are all now at the beginning of the beginning and not the end of the story. Therefore, a qualitative leap in Arab and Palestinian consciousness is required in order to be able to cope with both, extreme challenges and immense opportunities.

History indeed cannot be denied, but the new circumstances carry within themselves the seeds of a new history which is primarily, the responsibility of the Palestinian people in the first order, and then the Arab, because if the attitude of helplessness prevails and the question of what can we do; if we are collectively helpless, don’t expect others to do your job for you like adolescents expecting adults to sort out things for them.

Now, is the recognition of the Palestinian state significant?

Well, one is baffled that the question is even raised by Palestinians as well as Arabs, simply because one doesn’t excuse such an attitude by the catalogue of horrors one listed above. We are at the junction now of correcting historical imbalances, addressing bluntly the historical injustice of first, the legacy of colonialism and by and large, the consequences of the wars of 1948 as well as 1967.

There are also legal and diplomatic implications for this recognition, it bolsters Palestinian position in international fora opening the pathway to legal challenges against Israel’s actions in the occupied territories, while shifting diplomatic alliances in the Middle East and beyond.

Essentially the recognition of Palestine, affirms the Palestinian right to self determination, sovereignty, and validating Palestinian claims to establishing a state alongside Israel. Ultimately, we can all look now at the Palestinian issue not from the sole perspective of being a humanitarian and refugees issue, but from the perspective of national independence.

Dr Janbek is a Jordanian writer living in Paris, France.