Trump’s Paradigm Shifts 

Dr Khairi Janbek

Islolationism in American terms meant historically, the interests of the USA are best served by not getting entangled in wars across the Atlantic, nor in the political affairs of Europe and possibly beyond, while keeping the economic expansion going.

Now to what extent will the incoming administration of Donald Trump proceed with isolationism and to what extent it believes will serve US interests?; in the mean time let us not forget that people electioneering or euphoric, are not the same people in the Oval Office. 

But still the first signs of isolationism are emerging in the field of US trade policy, with intended high customs and duties on imported goods from abroad.

This goes as well for the foreign policy of Trump which signals his distaste to negotiating with blocks and preferring bilateral agreements. This puts him in good standing with likeminded world leaders but certainly at odds with the EU, which by extension at odds with NATO also.

Ukraine

As for the current hot spots, Trump is accustomed to paradigm shifts, for a start he thinks that supporting Ukraine is a money losing project, and good business requires an atmosphere for peace. Therefore, most likely Trump will adopt a position of neutrality in this war, neither doing anything to harm Ukraine effectively, nor help it financially or militarily, while at the same time, trying to open diplomatic and trade dialogue with Russia. 

He may take the initiative to urge negotiations between the two parties on the basis of a business deal, in other words concessions.  No Meg’s Russia and not totally sovereign Ukraine, in any case, in Trump’s eyes, it is a European war after all.

Mideast

Now when it comes to the Middle East, this can be more tricky.  Trump has good relations with the Gulf Arab leaders, leaders of Egypt and Jordan, but also he is committed to the security of Israel and has good relations with Netanyahu. 

In a sense he has to square the circle if he wants to keep his relationships unscathed to deal with two most sour issues: The two state solution to the Palestinian problem, and the future of Iran, while taking into consideration, that both his allies, Egypt and Jordan are jittery about the issue of population transfer.

Trump’s option would be offering Netanyahu a free hand in Iran with US support, in exchange for a semblance of Palestinian self-rule, thus paving the way for deligitimising Hamas while legitimizing and presenting the continuation of war as a war between Israel and Iran, with Iran’s proxies being a legitimate target. 

Dr Khairi Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris and the above opinion is that of the author and doesn’t reflect crossfirearabia.com. 

Continue reading
Religion, Nationalism, Middle East Style!

Dr Khairi Janbek 

When you consider yourself as a member of the greatest group in existence, irrespective of its characteristics, it is only natural to assume that the values of this group are the greatest, and consequently, the only valid values which are permissible to hold.

However, we must not delude ourselves, because religion cannot be neatly put in the pigeonhole as a moral, or personal spiritual force, for the very ancient nature of organised religion has given it a powerful role in defining peoples personal and group identities, 

in other words, religion plays a national as well as personal, moral, and spiritual roles.

Nationalist and religious identities are both manifestations of the need for belonging, as people have the basic need to belong, a need which can be expressed in inclusive or an exclusive way leading to serious consequences.  

Dualism

In the context of the Arab world, dualism has ruled supreme, the choice has always been, either religion or nationalism, but Iran, Israel and Turkey, have managed to fuse religion into nationalism.  Each one of those countries, reflecting on themselves individually, thought of themselves as great nations, consequently, this meant that great nations require great religions, and not only that, but their own perspective of their own faiths can only be the true path.

The Arab world till now, shows that religion and nationalism remain irreconcilable, which makes it difficult for the Arab individual to understand Iranian, Israeli, and Turkish societies.  

In fairness however, one must say that, the reluctance of any Arab state to claim representation of Islam is very likely to bring severe opposition from both Islamists and nationalists. 

Therefore by separating Islam from nationalism, the individual Arab state strengthens its own brand of legitimacy, and as we see, every Arab state is comfortable with the abstract notion of an Islamic Umma (greater nation) in as much as it is comfortable with the abstract notion  of Arab Umma (greater nation).

Dr Khairi Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris and the above opinion is that of the author and doesn’t reflect crossfirearabia.com. 

Continue reading
Nervous Mideast Awaits: Gaza, Lebanon and Possibly Iran

In recent days, the region has witnessed significant events, the most notable of which was the assassination of Yahya Sinwar, the de facto leader of Hamas. This event, heavily relied upon by Israel, came at a time when the military focus had already shifted to the Lebanese front. This shift has kept the war atmosphere ablaze, making it difficult for the international community to put more pressure on Netanyahu to end the war in Gaza.

Meanwhile, Israel will likely manoeuvre by appearing to offer concessions in humanitarian aid and relief efforts, while in reality escalating its pressure on Hamas and seeking to take advantage of the uncertainty within the movement following Sinwar’s death. This situation may force Hamas to urgently craft a new political strategy for the coming phase, especially as its upcoming political battle promises to be one of its most complex challenges.

On the Lebanese front, Hizbollah managed to deliver strikes inside Israel in recent days, the most prominent of which was the drone attack targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s residence. Although the attack did not cause significant damage, its symbolism was considerable. Netanyahu quickly seized the opportunity to shift the narrative in his favour, moving from a position of blame in the eyes of some allies to portraying himself as a victim. This allowed him to launch a new campaign of mobilization. Through this effort, Netanyahu aims to gain a green light for a series of operations that could go beyond military and security targets to also include political objectives in Lebanon and Iran, with potential extensions into Syria and Iraq.

At the same time, Israel has intensified its attacks on Hizbollah across various regions of Lebanon, targeting individuals and locations, particularly in Beirut’s southern suburbs. It is clear that Israel aims to dismantle the urban infrastructure of this area while also contributing to ongoing demographic displacement efforts. The broader goal appears to be turning the southern suburbs into an uninhabitable zone, displacing its residents. Ultimately, Israel seeks to reshape Lebanon’s security landscape by creating a deep buffer zone in the south, ensuring a different form of international presence that would replace the current UNIFIL forces, and stripping Hezbollah of its social strongholds in the future.

As Israel works to contain the surrounding fronts, from Gaza to the West Bank, it continues to escalate its strikes against Lebanon and maintains Syria under constant attack to disrupt the presence of Iran and Hezbollah and cut off potential logistical supplies. These actions indicate that Israel is paving the way to target Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

At the same time, Yemen and Iraq remain potential sources of threat. The United States’ robust engagement in targeting the Houthis with specialized operations, particularly using B-2 bombers, suggests that Iraq might be the front activated to distract Israel and create a security crisis within its borders. This aligns with recent operations from Lebanon that aim to create internal security turmoil in Israel, seeking to disrupt daily life. These efforts are expected to escalate through multiple operations using diverse methods, as has already been observed in recent weeks.

The intensification of attacks on Lebanon, the isolation of Syria, and the significant US military buildup, including the deployment of the “THAAD” missile defence systems to Israel, all fall under the broader preparations for what could come after an Israeli strike on Iran. This further suggests that the groundwork has been laid for a significant and targeted attack on the IRGC.

Sensing this looming threat, Iran’s foreign minister has embarked on a wide-reaching diplomatic campaign across the region, though it appears that none of its objectives have been met. The campaign’s primary goal was to prevent military action against Iran while highlighting the dangers of entering an open confrontation with Iran and the security risks it would pose across the region.

The region’s entry into a phase of direct targeting of Iran opens the door to new repercussions. Large swaths of geography could face waves of violence and attacks, particularly given the possibility that various groups and cells may act independently. This raises the level of security threats across much of the region, including areas that are not currently involved in the active conflict zones.

Dr Amer Al Sabaileh, a professor in Jordan University, is a columnist for the Jordan Times

Continue reading
Israeli Media: We Are Waging a ‘War of Brains’ With Hezbollah

Israeli media revealed new details about the circumstances of the attack that targeted a military building in the Binyamina area south of Haifa. Israeli military analysts and experts said the incident casts doubt on the ability to intercept Hezbollah drones, and that the army is waging a war of brains with Hezbollah.

Military affairs correspondent Itai Blumenthal of Channel 11 said that the two drones that targeted the building in the base arrived via the northern maritime zone, where one of them was intercepted near the city of Nahariya, while the other disappeared from the field of view of Israeli fighters and helicopters just before hitting the building.

Blumenthal confirmed that the drone did not fire missiles, noting that this type of drone is known to the Israeli army and is manufactured in Iran and is available to Hezbollah, which raises further questions about the army’s ability to effectively detect these drones in the current war.

In the same context Nir Dvori, military analyst for Channel 12 said that this incident caused great disappointment, especially since the recent period witnessed some progress in the army’s ability to intercept drones. He added this incident completely turned the picture upside down, and revealed the gaps in the Israeli defense system.

A war of brains

Dvori explained this war of brains is witnessing a continuous development of capabilities on both sides. He added the Israeli army is working to improve its interception capabilities, while Hezbollah continues to develop the low-flying and high-speed techniques of its drones, which makes it more difficult to detect and shoot them down.

For his part Eitan Ben Eliyahu, former commander of the Israeli Air Force, confirmed that there is a war of minds taking place in real time between Hezbollah drone operators and soldiers operating Israeli detection and interception systems.

He described this battle as similar to a computer game, with each side trying to outdo the other in real time.

Yossi Yehoshua, a military affairs analyst for Channel 24 and Yedioth Ahronoth, pointed out that last deadly incident added to a series of injuries sustained by Israeli soldiers in the past two weeks since the start of the ground operations in Lebanon.

He said hundreds of soldiers were injured as a result of the use of anti-tank missiles, mortar shells, and drones by Hezbollah.

A surprise attack on the Golani Brigade training camp, located about 80 kilometers deep in southern Lebanon, Sunday, resulted in the killing of four soldiers and the wounding of 67, including eight in critical condition. The Israeli Army Radio described this attack as the deadliest incident against the army since the start of the current war.

Israeli media reported at the time that the drone fired a missile at the training camp, before crashing into the dining hall inside the camp, where soldiers were eating according to Al Jazeera.

Continue reading