Think Forward.

International Politics

by Aziz Daouda
81380
Chapters: 10 30.3 min read

9: Between Deals and Geopolitics: Trump Snubs Israel and Bets on the Gulf Monarchies 7476

Aziz Daouda, 7 mon.
On May 13, 2025, Donald Trump began the first major international tour of his second term. Instead of stopping in Jerusalem, a symbol of the strong alliance between the United States and Israel, the president chose to visit only the three Gulf countries: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Israel, a neighboring and long-standing partner, was not included. This decision represents a significant change in American diplomacy and could reshape regional dynamics. It raises the question: is this simply an economic strategy or a deeper geopolitical shift? In Riyadh, the focus was clearly on business. Saudi Arabia announced an unprecedented investment of $600 billion in the American economy, with plans to increase it to $1 trillion over four years. The sectors involved include defense, energy, technology, infrastructure, and especially weaponry, which may cause discomfort for Israel. The U.S. military orders amount to $142 billion, reflecting the priority to secure America’s economic future through strong partnerships with the Gulf monarchies, which aim to be seen as more than just oil producers. Saudi Arabia is a major global economic player and even influenced the lifting of U.S. sanctions on Syria. In Doha, Qatar signed historic agreements worth nearly $1.2 trillion, including the sale of Boeing planes and GE Aerospace engines to Qatar Airways. Qatar also gifted Trump a plane valued at nearly half a billion dollars. The United Arab Emirates committed to investing $1.4 trillion over ten years in the American economy, focusing on artificial intelligence and digital infrastructure. At each stop, investment forums brought together leading figures from Silicon Valley and Wall Street, demonstrating the intention to strengthen economic ties with the Gulf. Trump presented tangible results, reinforcing his image as a dealmaker and promising long-term prosperity for the United States. He secured jobs and prosperity by renegotiating tariffs and ensuring that capital would first benefit the U.S. economy. But why was Israel excluded from this tour? The regional situation offers some explanation: the war in Gaza continues, the humanitarian crisis worsens, and talks between Saudi Arabia and Israel are stalled. A visit to Jerusalem could have been seen as provocative and might have endangered the important economic agreements. Additionally, Trump’s proposal to transform Gaza into a "Riviera of the Middle East" was not well received by Arab-Muslim countries. The focus remained on regional stability and economic cooperation, avoiding symbolic issues. Trump’s approach is cautious and pragmatic, consistent with his "America First" policy. This decision does not reflect a punishment of Netanyahu, despite tensions between the two leaders, but signals a shift in the relationship between Washington and Jerusalem. Whereas Israel was a priority in Trump’s first term, the approach is now more nuanced and pragmatic. Israel is costly for the U.S., and Trump seeks financial support for a heavily indebted country. There are many strategic differences with Israel on issues such as Gaza, Iran’s nuclear program, and normalization with Riyadh. However, Trump still faces a firm Netanyahu, whose hardline stance complicates American goals. Supporting Israel without reservation risks losing economic opportunities with the Gulf monarchies. By focusing on these countries, Trump signals that American diplomacy now prioritizes economic interests and new regional balances, even if it means temporarily distancing from a historic ally. This message also reaches Israeli voters and the international community: automatic loyalties are replaced by realpolitik, where partnerships are judged by their concrete benefits. This change breaks with decades of American diplomacy, where Israel was always central during presidential visits. The White House now favors tangible outcomes and alliances that benefit the U.S. economy and the president’s international standing. The vice president also strengthens his position for the upcoming election. The Republican Party welcomes this. In summary, Israel’s absence from the Middle East tour can be explained by the priority given to economic matters, caution in a volatile context, and a desire to redefine strategic balances in favor of the U.S. This decision may redraw alliances in the Middle East, marking an era where American diplomacy is guided by economic returns and regional stability, even if it disrupts traditions and surprises allies. Israel remains an essential partner but cannot match the scale of opportunities offered by the Gulf. For Trump, the priority is clear: "America First," including in redefining Middle Eastern alliances. If this strategy succeeds economically, it could have lasting effects on regional dynamics and Israel’s role in American diplomacy. Israeli society must acknowledge this new reality, and opposition parties might use this moment to counter extremists dominating politics. Israel’s future depends on regional peace, which also requires the Palestinian people’s right to live in peace. This will be the next challenge. The Gulf monarchies invest to support the U.S. but also become more demanding on this issue. The Middle East, birthplace of religions and much of human civilization, long a stage for ideological rivalries, is becoming the ground for a new American realpolitik. Donald Trump, true to his style, favors deals and results, even if it means breaking conventions. Israel’s exclusion is not an oversight but a sign of strategic repositioning that could reshape the future of the region and the world.

10: Trump, Morocco, and the End of the Polisario Myth 9199

Aziz Daouda, 8 mon.
In just a few short weeks, the Western Sahara issue has seen a series of rare and intense developments, marking a genuine acceleration in a case long frozen by diplomatic deadlock, strategic inertia, and hidden agendas. The Trump administration, leading an international current weary of this outdated conflict, has clearly demonstrated its desire to enter a new era, breaking away from decades of inaction fueled by the Cold War and its lingering ideological effects. For Washington, there is no longer any tolerance for the destabilization games of Algeria’s military regime, which has lost its bearings and uses this conflict to mask its own internal political, economic, and social failures. By doing so, it hinders regional development ambitions and healthy, complementary relations with a Moroccan neighbor it both envies for its successes and resents for its strong alliances with the West. Donald Trump's election reshuffled the deck. Gone are the cautious postures and fragile balancing acts between the parties. The time has come for action, transparent alliances, and the pursuit of concrete solutions. In this context, the Trump administration’s support for Morocco’s autonomy proposal is unequivocal. The Moroccan initiative is now described by the White House as the only "just and lasting" basis for resolving the conflict. During a highly symbolic meeting between Moroccan Foreign Minister Nasser Bourita and Senator Marco Rubio, the latter reaffirmed the United States’ commitment to a solution based solely on Morocco’s offer. The signals are clear: for Washington, playtime is over. Morocco is strong and reliable. It is within its rights. It is the best friend and partner in the region. It was also the first country to recognize the United States and to protect its fleet during the country’s early, difficult years. This reaffirmed American realignment comes with bold proposals. Several influential members of Congress are now considering officially designating the Polisario Front as a terrorist organization. They have a solid basis for their case, including: attacks on civilians in Smara and near El Mahbes, the unilateral breach of the 1991 ceasefire, and alleged ties with hostile powers like Iran and Russia—not to mention the confirmed presence of Polisario fighters in Syria, who are still being held there. On April 11, it should be noted, Republican Representative Joe Wilson announced his intention to introduce a bill to this effect. According to him, the Polisario Front serves as a gateway for what he calls the “Axis of Aggression” in Africa, linking the separatist group to Iranian and Russian geopolitical ambitions on the continent, posing a threat to U.S. security. He now holds in his hands a well-documented Hudson Institute report that points to close ties between the Polisario and Hezbollah, and even the PKK. The Polisario is said to be involved in arms trafficking with terrorist groups in the Sahel, the embezzlement of humanitarian aid, and more. It would be a mistake to think this logic is limited to Americans. Just last week, for example, former UK Defence Secretary Liam Fox also described the Polisario as a terrorist organization. The idea is gaining serious ground. This dynamic puts Algeria face to face with its responsibilities: the Polisario is hosted, supported, and funded on its soil. Labeling the Polisario a terrorist group would effectively remove it from the equation. Its diplomatic marginalization would further isolate Algiers, now clearly seen as a direct party to the conflict, and no longer the neutral third actor it claims to be. The mask has definitively fallen. Another country facing turbulence: South Africa. A traditional supporter of the Polisario, Pretoria is beginning to feel the impact of this strategic shift. The local press is raising questions, and voices within the ANC are calling for a reassessment of the country’s foreign policy. Several NGOs are known to be raising funds for the Polisario, but think tanks such as the Hudson Institute argue that a terrorist designation would force them to stop these operations under threat of international sanctions. The consequences could be severe for South African institutions. Already under the scrutiny of the FATF (Financial Action Task Force), the country cannot afford to be suspected of complicity with a designated terrorist entity. Banks in particular fear tighter controls and may pressure the government to change course. Tensions between Washington and Pretoria, already strained since Trump took office, risk further deterioration. The U.S. administration makes no secret of its distrust of the South African government. A possible designation of the Polisario as a terrorist group could become a breaking point in an already fragile relationship, potentially leading to sanctions, economic pressure, and heightened diplomatic scrutiny. The Western Sahara dossier is entering a new phase. The status quo no longer holds against the backdrop of international realignments, and stalling tactics are losing effectiveness. The world no longer tolerates frozen conflicts, and global powers are looking for a stable, trustworthy Africa that is open to cooperation. In this evolving dynamic, Morocco appears to have won the battle of clarity. The question now is whether its adversaries will be able to read the new balance of power. This is likely what explains and fuels the optimism of Morocco’s UN representative, Omar Hilale. In barely veiled terms, he hinted that the issue might be declared resolved to coincide with the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Green March, on November 6…