Hammering The UN?

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.

Continue reading
Hamas, Trump and The Ceasefire

By Dr Marwan Asmar

CROSSFIREARABIA – The USA wants a ceasefire on Gaza, yet it maintains its supplies of weapons to Israel which the latter uses to beat Palestinians with. This was the case with the former Joe Biden administration.

However, it is the Donald Trump administration that is now in the front brokerage seat, talking, and for the first time, to Hamas directly, face-to-face about ending the genocidal, destructive Israeli war on Gaza.

Benjamin Netanyahu is downright angry about this fact, yet he is making sure that he doesn’t upset Trump by his extremist utterances despite the fact that he is on record for wanting to continue the deadly war on the civilians of Gaza under the pretext of destroying Hamas and its military wing.

However, it has been clear, and at least for the past month that direct negotiations between US presidential envoy Steve Witkoff and his team including Adam Boehler have been taking place with top members of Hamas despite the fact that Israel has stepped up its war on Gaza with its mass killing of its starving 2.2 million-population.

The recent breakthrough achieved by the two sides, Monday, is awaiting final approval by the Israeli government which is sending out mixed signals of agreements and discord. However, there is circulating news that Netanyahu is finally ready.

The new deal agreed upon with the American team is that Hamas would agree on a 60-day-ceasefire where the Islamic movement would free 10 alive and dead prisoners (five of each) on the first day of the deal and 10 (also alive and dead) at the end of 60 days.

The American-sponsored deal includes the lifting of the Israeli siege on Gaza and allowing the entry of 100 aid trucks per day to enter the territory. Meanwhile Witkoff says that during those 60 days talks would continue to negotiate a ceasefire on a permanent basis.

However, Israel is still mulling on the fact because it says the ceasefire negotiations originally agreed on with Witkoff last January are different than what the present US-Hamas is talking about. The Israeli side, mainly Netanyahu, states that they want Hamas out of Gaza but first of all they must lay-down their arms and stashed weapons. Finally, the Gaza Strip must be a free area from any weapons.

These are intractable issues although Hamas and directly talking with the Americans, has previously stated it would entertain the idea of Gaza being run by an independent committee. Such flexibility may be one indication why the American administration is talking to Hamas officials and which is unprecedented as no US government, including Trump in his first presidential term, talked to an organization that is on their “terrorist list”.

The latest breakthrough to achieve a ceasefire on Israel’s war on Gaza, relaunched on 19 March maybe seen as another hope-to-be-dashed as in previous long-talks in Cairo and Doha turned out to nothing and were no more than “talking shops” with the Israelis, especially Netanyahu unwilling to end the war on Gaza, and not least of all of what was regarded as weak US president in the form of Joe Biden and his Middle East roving Secretary of State Anthony Blinken.

All this appear to be changing now for Trump wants to end all global wars and doesn’t want to pay American money around the globe as in the case with Biden and his support for Ukraine where billions of dollars were spent. He has already stopped the war with the Houthis after “massacring” the country for a little more than a month and costing the American treasury around a $1 billion.

The American president is talking to Iran on a new nuclear deal and is now talking to Hamas with a real possibility of achieving a deal to end the war and allow UN aid trucks to feed the hungry of Gaza who are once again dying of Israeli-imposed starvation.

To prove his point on wanting to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza, Trump sacked his National Security Advisor Mike Waltz for talking to Netanyahu behind his back last April when delicate talks was being pursued between Trump administration officials and Hamas.

Tide turns

The tide is turning against Israel. As well as less endearing developments in the White House against Israel, many countries around the world, including states in the European Union like Britain, France, Spain, Holland, Belgium, Norway, Sweden and many more are today calling for the stopping of the war on Gaza with many openly saying they would support the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

This is something which is making Israel’s government extremely jittery. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sar is today, adopting a threatening attitude. He says if these countries take this step Israel would declare its sovereignty on many areas of the occupied West Bank.

All this, together with the latest negotiations, may finally persuade Israel to accept a deal rather than hold out and be prepared to be called an international pariah. Regardless however, many say that international pressure must be maintained from Trump in the United States as well as Europeans and the EU Union.

Continue reading
Trump: The Deal-Maker in Our Midst

By Dr. Ali Bakir

US President Donald Trump begun his Middle East tour on 12 May, starting in Saudi Arabia with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) summit, then moving on to Qatar and concluding in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Trump will be accompanied by a large delegation, including senior White House staff, several ministers, high-ranking officials, and an army of businesspeople. At the core of Trump’s tour to the influential and wealthy GCC states—Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE—will be investments, economic ties, business, and bilateral relationships. The Trump administration aims to attract hundreds of billions of dollars in investments from Gulf wealth funds into the United States.

Expected discussions include Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, Palestinian statehood, negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, and the ceasefire deal with Yemen’s Houthi group. Additionally, Syria and Lebanon may also feature on the agenda. Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa is reportedly seeking a meeting with Trump during his visit to Saudi Arabia, aiming to persuade him to lift sanctions and increase US involvement in Syria’s reconstruction, economy, and oil sector.

Trump critically needs this tour to project an image of a successful leader who has secured hundreds of billions of dollars in pledged investments and deals, as well as closer political and security ties with GCC states. Hundreds of agreements are anticipated during the visit, covering areas such as AI, transportation, minerals, energy, infrastructure, aviation, defense, and potentially broader agreements on semiconductors and nuclear energy.


Matter of prestige

The significance of this tour is heightened by the fact that Trump is facing both internal and external challenges, having yet to achieve any substantial victories in his ongoing struggles. These include the tariff dispute, Israeli involvement in Gaza, the Iran nuclear deal, Russia’s war in Ukraine, tensions with Canada and Greenland, and his ongoing conflict with China. An image of victory during his Gulf tour would help compensate for these setbacks. Gulf leaders are well aware of this and will arrange exceptional welcome ceremonies and generous hospitality for him. In other words, they will arrange a wonderful show for him. This not only caters to his personal ego but also enhances his standing both domestically in the US and internationally, where he is in dire need of a win. The outcome could create a win-win situation. However, it is important to note that not all the promises made during this tour will materialize. While some initiatives may come to fruition, others may remain merely part of the spectacle.

Unlike his first visit to the region during his initial term in the White House, which included Israel, Tel Aviv is notably absent from his current itinerary. This exclusion is quite significant. Under Netanyahu, Israel has little to offer the US president, aside from more problems, a negative image in the region, and a tarnished reputation for the president himself. It serves as a reminder of his failure to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza, largely due to Netanyahu’s unwillingness to pursue it.

In a previous interview following Biden’s election at the end of 2020, Trump explicitly blamed Netanyahu for the failure of his peace initiative with the Palestinians, stating, “Netanyahu never wanted peace.” Amid the ongoing conflict, initiatives aimed at encouraging Saudi Arabia to recognize Israel—an objective pursued by Trump during his first term—are likely to remain on hold. Riyadh has indicated that it requires tangible progress toward a Palestinian state first, a condition that Israel has not been willing to meet. However, Reuters reported this week that the US has shifted its stance and is no longer insisting that Saudi Arabia normalize relations with Israel as a prerequisite for advancing discussions on civil nuclear cooperation.

Desire to appear as dealmaker

Regardless, Trump’s Middle East tour represents more than just a diplomatic engagement with key US allies; it is a calculated effort to reclaim geopolitical momentum and project strength amid mounting domestic and international challenges. The emphasis on economic deals, defense cooperation, and strategic investments highlights Washington’s strategy of leveraging the Gulf’s financial and political capital to enhance Trump’s image as a dealmaker-in-chief. However, beneath the pomp lies a web of unmet expectations and unresolved conflicts.

While Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE are acutely aware of Trump’s need for a symbolic win, they remain cautious about committing to politically costly moves without tangible concessions, particularly concerning Palestinian statehood. Ultimately, this trip may provide short-term optics that bolster Trump’s leadership narrative, but its long-term impact will depend on whether these engagements translate into sustained commitments or fade into the background noise of global challenges.

Dr Bakir is Assistant Professor at Qatar University, and non-resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.

Continue reading
Iran-US Talks in Muscat: Winners and Losers

EDITOR’S NOTE: This editorial, written by Abdul Bari Atwan, chief editor of the Arabic Al Rai Al Youm website, on Saturday, 12 April, relates to the first talks of the Tehran-Washington negotiations that started in Muscat, Oman relating to the Iran nuclear file.

Iran succeeded in scoring a major goal against the United States in the clash of wills that began today, Saturday, in the Omani capital, Muscat, by insisting that the negotiations be “indirect,” contrary to what its American adversary wants: Namely “direct” negotiations as announced by US President Donald Trump at the White House in his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week, who was surprised by this shocking announcement.

The US delegation, led by Trump’s Advisor Steve Witkoff, is participating in these talks from a weak and defeated position, especially after the failure of the US plan to impose tariffs on more than 200 countries worldwide. America has become friendless, and even turned its friends into enemies, especially in Europe and Southeast Asia like South Korea and Japan.

Strategies of negotiations

Iran, represented in the negotiations by veteran Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, the man who led the negotiations for the first nuclear agreement with the six major powers in 2015 and possesses extensive experience in the art and strategies of negotiation, did not submit to the “threats and intimidation” adopted by President Trump.

They imposed their conditions in full on their American opponents and insisted on limiting the negotiations to the nuclear issue, not addressing other issues such as missile and drone systems, and severing ties with the arms of the resistance in Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq. And they got what they wanted.

The one who called for a return to a diplomatic solution to the Iranian-American crisis and backed down from his threats of a devastating military strike was President Trump. This happened when he realized the threats of military strikes, coupled with the dispatch of three American aircraft carriers and squadrons of giant B-52 bombers, backfired.

These did not intimidate the Iranians, but prompted a response from Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who declared a state of emergency in the Iranian military, placed giant missile platforms, advanced submarines, and ground and naval forces on high alert, and threatened to destroy all of the 10 military bases surrounding his country and housing 50,000 soldiers, close the Strait of Hormuz, and prevent Gulf oil exports to the entire world.

The Iranians do not trust President Trump, who tore up the nuclear agreement in 2018, and is well aware he has become an Israeli puppet. He also realizes that America, defeated in Ukraine, did not simply march to Moscow waving white flags, ready to sell Ukraine and its people to the Russians and surrender to all of its conditions, including the annexation of a fifth of Ukrainian territory to Russia, without consulting its European allies, whom it has become embroiled in this war.

When President Trump demands that the Muscat negotiations reach a quick agreement within two months, this is due to his bitter experience in the Vienna negotiations, which lasted a year-and-a-half and ended in failure due to Iran’s cunning use of the “yes, but” theory, without offering any concessions.

Globally hated…

We do not believe that this theory will be abandoned in the Muscat negotiations, especially since America, which is now globally hated and has lost all of its allies in the West and the East, has become weak, and is on the brink of bankruptcy due to the huge deficit in its annual general budget ($1.4 trillion) and its public debt that has reached more than $42 trillion.

What will encourage Iran to harden its position in these negotiations is China’s strong and defiant stance in the trade war against the United States. Its president, Xi Jinping, declared he will respond in kind to America and its president, and will fight this war to the end, no matter how costly the results.

He has decided to raise customs duties on American goods by a historic rate of more than 125 percent, and has given the green light to his allies in the BRICS group to declare war on the dollar and the global SWIFT financial system, through which America controls the global economy and financial movement.

Trump, wounded by the failure of his gamble to ignite a trade war, and the internal and global revolt against it, with the beginning of the decline in the value of the dollar and the escalation of the recession in the American economy as its first fruits, was forced to stop this war less than three days after its announcement under the cover of a three-month freeze on the application of customs duties.

Crushing military strike

Hence, his threats, i.e. Trump’s necessity of quickly to reach a nuclear agreement didn’t have any effect despite the threat of a crushing military strike. Iran’s respond to Trump forced him to make a major, unprecedented concessions to save face.

Iran, which has suffered significant losses in Lebanon, with the weakening of its powerful military arm in that country (Hezbollah), and in Syria with the fall of the President Assad’s regime, undertook rapid reviews internally and regionally, abandoning many of its policies pursued in recent years, after realizing that the knife is approaching its neck, and that the American-Israeli conspiracy does not only seek to destroy it and remove its military claws and fangs, but also to change the Islamic regime there.

The results of these reviews reflected in the transition from a phase of patience and long-suffering to a phase of confrontation in its military and political aspects, and the strengthening of its allied military arms, starting with the striking Yemen whose arm there is waging heroic wars not only against aircraft carriers and American warships in the Red and Arabian Seas, but also by intensifying ballistic missiles and drone bombardment of the occupied Palestinian interior in Jaffa, Haifa, and Eilat, accelerating the recovery process for Hezbollah in Lebanon, and finding other ways to deliver military supplies to it.

After the historic Syrian corridor was closed with the fall of the Assad regime, America became a farce in the first months of Trump’s rule. It’s no surprise that Iran and its allied proxies are among the biggest beneficiaries and gloaters. He who laughs last laughs loudest… and the days will tell!

Continue reading
Mad President and Street Brawl

By Dr Khairi Janbek

People from my generation remember a pop group which used to sing a song called the lunatics have taken over the asylum. Now, they were not themselves lunatics but merely performing for their audience and their fans, in the same manner. Neither Trump nor his band wagon are necessarily a bunch of thugs, but they are merely performing for their fans and audience.

However one cannot find any reason for world leaders to go to the Oval Office in order to provide US president Donald Trump with the material to entertain his fans and audience.

He ambushed King Abdullah of Jordan with the entry of journalists when that was not supposed to happen in order to market his absurd Gaza plan, president Emmanuel Macron of France provided him with the opportunity of posturing as an antagonist to the EU, prime minister Keir Starmer provided him with the opportunity of showing what Britain was groveling for – a free trade agreement and a role of being a bridge between the US and EU.

Ironically however, the worst of the Trump performance was left for Volodymr Zelensky, though his trip was the only one that made sense.

Zelensky for all intents and purposes, went to sign an agreement to hand the resources of Ukraine to America, but suddenly the situation deteriorated to almost a street brawl. Why? The whole thing was agreed upon by both sides from the start.

Of course, Zelensky expected a protection commitment from the USA in exchange for the mineral resources, but in fairness, without an explicit US commitment protection would have been implicitly there since supposedly, American companies and workers would be working in Ukraine, so what has actually happened to derail the whole agreement?

Of course, any such agreement with potential implicit US protection of Ukraine, is totally against Russian interests, especially according to some speculation, Putin has the intention to occupy the whole of Ukraine, therefore the talk in the corridors, is that Putin has offered Trump the exploitation of Ukrainian resources in the occupied territories of Russia, which in effect sabotaged the minerals agreement between US and Ukraine, and rescued Trump from having to give security guarantees; albeit implicit to Ukraine.

Now, at the peril of repeating the usual cliche of the EU facing a crossroad on its path, something which had happened frequently, this time it’s in fact different. The truth is that the US has been distancing itself from the EU at least from the days of president Obama, but the difference now is that the EU is being attacked by both the US and Russia, and finds itself as the large leviathan with clay feet unable to move.

The dilemma of differences within the EU are prominent, with full support for Ukraine, with some having lukewarm support, while some with no support at all, moreover the NATO future is hanging in the balance, to keep or not to keep that is the question, but what is the alternative? A European army which is yet to crystallize as an idea, or just drop all the effort?

What it boils down to now, is the idea of leadership of the “Free World”, certainly this notion has always been a nebulous idea, still, the US stood by it and projected its image accordingly, but now, it seems the US is not interested in world affairs except in what it can exploit and use and abuse for its own interests, which means, who will be the new leader of the Free World?

In fact, is there a need for a leader of the free world assuming that there is such a world? If the EU has any such pretensions, then big changes are necessary within its membership as it must be realized the road is very long for such an objective. But in the mean time, we have to settle for the theory of the mad president, ie. Trump would do anything, and peace by force with an oxymoron.

Dr Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris.

Continue reading