How should the world deal with US President Donald Trump? How do leaders of other countries and organisations work with a powerful man who wields impulsiveness, shock tactics and improvisation as strategic tools to implement calculated agendas and goals marketed as products of his own genius?
This question is critical, because most world leaders are seeking answers amid divisions – between those who see merit in Mr Trump’s provocative approach, believing it leads to new ideas and breaks through diplomatic deadlocks; and those who fear the consequences of angering a leader who is not adequately informed about historical and geopolitical realities yet is determined to reshape them.
A seasoned observer of international politics once described Mr Trump to me as a “lone wolf”. While the term has various meanings, including pertaining to perpetrators of violence, it is enough to say that lone wolves act unilaterally even though their actions are meant to serve a larger cause, ideology or group. Mr Trump thrives on ambiguity, using it to lure others into his orbit, but he trusts no one but himself and has an almost unshakable confidence in his own judgment.
His actions have already forced Europe to begin forging its independence from its American “big brother”. What should the Arab world do? What are its options?
Last week’s emergency EU summit marked a turning point. It formally endorsed security independence from the US, approving a plan to invest more than $680 billion in Europe’s defence, particularly along its borders with Russia and Belarus. While the summit came in response to US pressure for Europe to increase its own defence spending, its real catalyst was the humiliation of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the White House and the subsequent freezing of US military aid to Kyiv.
Mr Trump may claim victory for forcing Europe to shoulder its own security costs, earning him praise for his tough stance. However, from a strategic perspective, the US is losing influence as it relinquishes leverage over its European allies. Yet he does not concern himself with long-term consequences. His focus is on immediate winning, the optics of triumph, and the satisfaction of imposing his will.
If Nato were to break up, Mr Trump is unlikely to scrutinise its wider implications, including Europe being forced into strategic realignments that could ultimately contradict US interests, particularly regarding China. His approach to the Ukraine war is thus not about securing peace or ending the conflict in a way that protects European interests. Instead, European leaders see it as a trade-off: Mr Trump aiding Russian aims in Ukraine in exchange for Moscow scaling back some of its partnerships with Beijing.
Despite their grievances, European leaders have been careful not to antagonise, ignore or underestimate Mr Trump. They have sought to make him feel as though he has succeeded in pushing them out of their transatlantic “comfort zone” and into greater self-reliance. They have taken steps to keep the door open to rescuing transatlantic bonds.
Like America’s neighbours, Canada and Mexico, Europe has continued trying to persuade Mr Trump that his push for tariffs would ultimately hurt the US economy, not just theirs. Canada for its part has pursued a dual strategy of defiance and negotiation, hoping to convince Mr Trump that his policies are costly not only for Canadians and Mexicans but for Americans as well.
So far, Mr Trump appears to be stepping back, but whether this is a tactical retreat or a prelude to a more aggressive push remains unclear.
The greater challenge, however, is the one faced by the various Arab states and their various positions regarding Mr Trump.
The US President has shown little understanding of Middle Eastern dynamics, viewing the region exclusively through the prism of Israeli interests, as dictated by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He refuses to view the situation from any perspective other than Israel’s, making it nearly impossible for Arab leaders to engage with him rationally.
With Mr Trump, neither provocation nor submission is effective. His alliance with Mr Netanyahu appears unbreakable, especially after he personally escalated threats against Hamas, vowing to “cleanse” Gaza. At the same time, Arab states have so far failed to persuade Hamas to disarm, relinquish political ambitions, abandon armed resistance, or leave Gaza. The Palestinian Authority, too, is unable to settle its conflict with Hamas and assume genuine leadership of the Palestinian project at the current juncture.
As a result, Gaza faces the prospect of even more brutal military operations, after Mr Trump declared his intent to crush Hamas. Were he to act on his word, it could be devastating not just for the group, but for all of Gaza.
Mr Trump is unlikely to waver. He may extend the deadline for Hamas, but he will not back down. Last week’s emergency Arab summit, which adopted an initiative to rebuild Gaza without displacing its people, is, in Mr Trump’s view, unrealistic and impractical. His Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, has reportedly since called the proposal a “good faith first step” with “a lot of compelling features to it” – which is encouraging from the Arab perspective – but still needs Mr Trump’s support.
So, what can the Arab powers do? What means do they have to influence Mr Trump, even temporarily? The answer is difficult, and the options are complex.
One way would be to confront Mr Trump with the spectre of his own failure to achieve his goals. They could persuade him to scrutinise the consequences of his failure – which his own plan to transform Gaza after relocating its residents from their homeland would turn out to be – not just for others, but for his own agenda. In other words, the US President responds to politics only in personal terms.
Mr Trump may reconsider his stance if he concludes that his approach is ineffective, unlikely to yield the results he desires, or even contradicts his own logic. If he is confronted with a vivid picture of how destabilising the Middle East would directly harm US interests, he might pause and rethink some of his more dangerous positions.
Mr Trump must be made to understand that his partnership with Mr Netanyahu’s far-right government in pursuing the latter’s Biblical vision – one that claims Jewish rights over all of Gaza, the occupied West Bank and beyond – will ultimately destroy his much-desired “Deal of the Century” to bring the Arab world and Israel together.
