Trump and Musk, the arsonists
Asharq Al-Awsat, London, January 10
In [President-elect Donald] Trump’s first term, we had one provocateur; now, we have two. Elon Musk has joined Trump in the fray, igniting controversies even before assuming any official role.
Their firestorms are not confined to the US but have spread internationally. Trump is provoking Mexico, Canada, and Denmark, while Musk is embroiling himself in German politics and calling for upheaval in the government of the UK. These two outspoken figures are riding the wave of their November triumph, seeking to expand their influence beyond American borders. Their adept use of social media has enabled them to reach and sway massive audiences.
Musk, leveraging his ownership of a critical platform for political discourse, faces allegations of manipulating it to amplify his supporters while silencing criticisms. Despite his denials, X has emerged as a haven where his followers freely voice opinions, even if they border on conspiratorial or nonsensical. Both Trump and Musk exhibit vindictive streaks, reflecting personal grievances. Once a lifelong liberal, Trump turned against his former allies upon entering the presidency. They targeted him relentlessly, digging into his past and spreading spurious tales of illicit escapades in Moscow to blackmail him. Consequently, he developed a deep-seated animosity toward the “spiteful,” and “demented” elite he believed was intent on his downfall – a fate that befell him.
Similarly, Musk, who was also a liberal Democrat, harbors resentment toward the Biden administration, which he perceives as stifling his business – and championing progressive ideologies that have impacted his family. In a widely publicized interview, Musk spoke of his son’s challenges with an air of betrayal and bitterness. These emotional wounds come at a cost. The wrath and vindictiveness of the world’s wealthiest man differ vastly from those of a person with nothing to lose. Likewise, the US president’s fury eclipses that of a leader from a lesser nation.
Both Trump and Musk possess colossal egos, not easily bruised. Liberals and leftists may bear the consequences for besmirching their reputations. The media has painted Trump as a pathological liar and immoral character, while Musk has been depicted as an erratic figure plagued by substance abuse. The resulting turmoil sees them exerting not only political but also cultural influence. Their overarching ambition is to propagate right-wing ideologies across the West, which drives their support for European right-wing parties. Triumphs for these parties could spell an enduring setback for leftist movements.
While Trump and Musk occasionally align, they also diverge in their focuses. Trump is fixated on economic prosperity for Americans and immigration reforms. He vilifies what he terms as “criminals” entering the country, casting himself as America’s savior, committed to restoring its lost glory. In contrast, Musk positions himself not only as a political disruptor but also as a cultural crusader. He advocates for increased reproduction – citing the declining numbers of Westerners – to balance [rising] immigration. He warns of a cultural invasion that threatens Western identity, critiquing the Starmer government for its alleged leniency toward criminal groups, ostensibly to avoid accusations of racism and Islamophobia.
If any socio-political boundaries in Europe remain unchallenged by Trump, Musk seems poised to topple them. This was evident when a British MP lamented in Parliament that a rejected investigation into the “rape gang” would not fade, as Musk would keep the issue alive on social media. Trump and Musk will continue making headlines and igniting more controversies – some potentially beneficial – by challenging the longstanding arrogance of the liberal elite. However, their relentless momentum suggests they might inadvertently empower proponents of racism, hatred, and xenophobia. – Mamdouh Al-Muhaini
Liberating Arab consciousness: Harder than Liberating Palestine
Al Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, January 9
When examining the state of the Arab world over the past few decades and reflecting on the prevailing discourse from the 1950s to the present, one cannot escape the conclusion that freeing Arab consciousness is more challenging than liberating Palestine itself. Arab consciousness remains ensnared in events that occurred over 50 years ago, and despite dramatic global changes, it continues to think along those outdated lines. Meanwhile, the world has evolved significantly, yet the Arab mind remains captive to historical moments that will never return.
Once again, we see the rhetoric of defeat reemerging from one crisis to another. The calls to open borders, tear down boundaries, and rally the masses are old narratives making a comeback. What is particularly concerning is the applause that greets these appeals – a dangerous approval both in speech and action as though six decades of failures have not taught us anything.
Faced with the Palestinian cause, Arab consciousness finds itself paralyzed. Instead of unifying the Arab population, this just cause has only served to highlight deep divisions. Some attempt to morph idealistic dreams into political reality, acting as if Arabs have the luxury of choice amid a world governed by its own stringent laws, regulations, and overarching strategies.
Politics is the art of logic and should reflect actual realities, untainted by empty slogans and unrealistic aspirations. How, then, can we win the battle for awareness? Combating media misinformation is crucial. This effort marks the first necessary step toward halting the deception facing the Arab public, which is no longer a coherent entity but rather a mosaic of isolated and fragmented islands.
Without a profound analysis of Arab political discourse, solutions remain elusive, leaving us unaware of the true problem. This undertaking is vital for safeguarding a generation of young Arabs who deserve a prominent place on the future’s global map. Political discourse analysis, as defined by political media concepts, involves studying the language and methods used in political messaging to uncover how it seeks to influence public opinion, shape political identity, or legitimize policies. Through this meticulous examination, we can identify underlying flaws not only in the message and its sender but also in its recipient. Words alone are insufficient to alter the realities of time and place. Success is not built on stirring speeches but rather on circumstances, alliances, and diplomacy.
When [French president Charles] De Gaulle spoke of occupied France, his strength lay not just in his broadcasts but in the allies that supported his continuation, victory, and transformative efforts. France shared a unified dream and a fervent desire to reclaim its reality. The international community played a pivotal role in restoring Europe’s balance of power and halting the Nazis’ expansion from overwhelming the East and West. This collective willpower was instrumental in driving the geopolitical changes worldwide.
Without such concerted efforts, small schemes flounder, and dreams crash into the wall of reality. Many Arab theorists luxuriate in their freedom to choose. Stirring speeches and calls for struggle are easy from the comfort of a warm home in a secure city. Yet the real mobilizers are not found in those safe havens; they are the ones queuing for bread, searching for water, or the children awaiting aid from above. Life once thrived in the city before it was snatched away by those who remain ignorant of its true value. – Sultan Al-Saad Al-Qahtani
Islamophobia in the West
Al-Masry Al-Youm, Egypt, January 9
In the wake of any terrorist attack in the West, hate crimes against Muslim communities surge, and incidents of anti-Islam and anti-Muslim sentiment spike alarmingly. Many, including some Western politicians, bypass the specifics of the event, not waiting for details about the perpetrator’s motives to emerge, because the accusations are already poised, and the incident merely serves to reinforce them. The reactions from Muslims follow a familiar script, lacking innovation – they only denounce the act and reiterate that terrorism is unrelated to Islam.
Take, for example, the New Year’s Eve celebrations in New Orleans, where an American citizen and army veteran named Shamsud-Din Jabbar carried out a ramming attack that killed 14 people and injured dozens more. Initially, the media and prominent American leaders focused solely on Jabbar’s name, using it as fuel for a broad assault on Islam and those who practice it. Donald Trump declared, “When I said that the criminals coming into this country are much worse than the criminals in this country, it turns out I was right.” Yet, that narrative was misleading. Jabbar was an American born and raised in Houston, the largest city in Texas, who had served in Afghanistan and been awarded numerous medals, including the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal.
The FBI initially speculated that Jabbar had accomplices, based on the presence of an ISIS flag found in the vehicle used in the attack, but later confirmed he acted alone. Did these events lead to any change? Not in the least. Jabbar was depicted as a symbol of all Muslims, despite Muslim organizations in America, particularly in Houston, swiftly condemning the atrocious act – and despite the fact that a Muslim college student named Kareem Badawi was among the victims. The blame fell indiscriminately on all who practice Islam.
One Houston Muslim remarked, “No Muslim should be tarred just because one man committed a heinous crime like this.” Meanwhile, Muslims anxiously wished that the attacker wasn’t from their area, fearing they would be labeled as terrorists because of it. Adding to the anguish, this attack occurred amid American Muslims grappling with the impacts of the brutal Israeli aggression on Gaza, compounded by Israeli propaganda on American soil.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) reported that anti-Islam sentiment, or Islamophobia, has skyrocketed since the Hamas attacks on Oct. 7, 2023, followed by Israel’s brutal response. The number of complaints from Muslims surged to 3,578 in the last three months of 2024, marking a staggering 178% increase from the same period in 2023. These complaints encompassed workplace discrimination, hate incidents in schools, and forced hijab removal. The most horrifying incident occurred last June when an American woman attempted to drown a three-year-old Muslim child in a Dallas swimming pool.
In Germany, following a terrorist attack at a Christmas market in Magdeburg last month, few considered that the perpetrator, who bore an Arab name, held anti-Islam beliefs. Instead, blame was swiftly directed to Muslims and Islam as a whole. Hostile statements, discriminatory tweets, and racist posts on social media argued that the issue lay with the religion itself and those who belong to it.
The Western mindset, typically averse to generalization and known for its detailed analysis of phenomena, mysteriously abandons these principles when it comes to Muslims. The leap to broad, negative conclusions seems almost inevitable. In recent years, when a Muslim committed a violent act, they were labeled a terrorist. Conversely, if a white Westerner committed a similar act, they were deemed a murderer, extremist, or radical – but not a terrorist. The religion of the Westerners was never scrutinized; instead, focus shifted to their social and material circumstances. With the rise of mass murders by Westerners, however, officials, investigative bodies, and the media have been compelled to classify these individuals as terrorists. Muslim communities bear some responsibility for the persistence of stereotypical views of Islam and Muslims. When a terrorist act is perpetrated by a Muslim, they hasten to condemn the person and assert that they do not represent Islam. Yet, there is an evident lack of real communication and bridge-building with Western citizens and media. An air of self-absorption prevails. There is no effective lobby to defend their interests, dispel misconceptions, or apply pressure. If a lobby does exist, it often serves specific government interests rather than overarching Arab or Islamic causes. Thus, it is unsurprising that the stereotypical images of Muslims perpetuated by Hollywood remain unchanged. – Abdullah Abdul Salam
Trump's expected policy towards Syria
Al Qabas, Kuwait, January 6
In the three administrations preceding Trump’s second term – encompassing his first term as well – US engagement in Syria was emblematic of a broader trend: decreased American involvement in the Middle East, with a strategic pivot toward the Asia-Pacific region. This entailed minimal military and diplomatic action in Middle Eastern conflicts, focusing instead on critical interests like counterterrorism, albeit with limited military involvement. Consequently, it is foreseeable that in Trump’s second term, following Assad’s ousting, there will be no substantial American intervention in Syria.
Trump has consistently advocated for reducing US involvement globally, particularly in the Middle East, adhering to an isolationist stance. His declarations immediately after Assad’s fall highlighted America’s limited role in Syria, underlining that the conflict does not align with American interests, asserting, “This is not our battle.”
Furthermore, Trump publicly acknowledged Turkey’s significant role in masterminding Assad’s overthrow through its factions. According to him, Turkey emerged as the sole victor in Syria, holding all strategic advantages there.
While Trump’s policy in Syria is skewed toward limited engagement, especially amid pressing global challenges like the rising Chinese threat, two key dynamics could exert significant pressure on this approach. These dynamics might prevent America’s strategy from veering toward complete abandonment and could also shape a more strategic and engaged policy, possibly with broader participation. Firstly, influential domestic actors within Trump’s administration could play a critical role.
Though the US president theoretically holds considerable power in shaping foreign policy – shared with Congress to an extent – real-world decisions are often driven by internal determinants and pressures, including the so-called deep-state policymaking bodies, particularly within the State Department and the Pentagon. Historically, these entities – focused on upholding national interests and adept at strategic maneuvering – would not endorse a full US retreat from Syria.
An illustration of this is Trump’s first-term decision to retain a limited American military presence in northern Syria, largely due to their pressure. For these policymakers, even a minimal military stake serves as a strategic bargaining chip vis-à-vis Turkey, Russia, and Iran within a broader web of intertwined interests. Secondly, and more pertinently, post-Assad developments intersect significantly with key US interests and some of Trump’s core priorities.
Chief among these are considerations involving Israel, the recurring threat of ISIS resurgence, and the connections between Ukraine and Syria. Despite ongoing debates over a negotiated or conspiratorial effort to topple Assad with US backing, it is evident that Israel stands to benefit most from Assad’s fall – neutralizing Iran’s primary regional ally, securing total control over the Golan Heights, and potentially establishing a buffer zone near Damascus.
It would, therefore, be illogical for Trump, a staunch supporter of Israel, to forgo an active American role in aiding Israel to dismantle any remaining Iranian presence in Syria, reorganize the regional dynamics, and exert pressure on key players, particularly Turkey, to tighten control over the Golan. Conversely, the potential resurgence of ISIS will remain a pressing concern for Trump under a new regime potentially led by former al-Qaida and ISIS affiliates. Additionally, Syria presents a robust bargaining asset for Trump in negotiations to persuade Russia to conclude the Ukrainian conflict as part of a strategic “Syria for Ukraine” compromise.
In summary, while Trump’s approach to Syria is likely to remain circumspect, especially militarily, it will avoid total neglect. By leveraging various strategic cards and enlisting ally support, the objective will be to reconfigure the Syrian landscape in alignment with American-Israeli strategic interests. – Noura Saleh Almujeem
Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb. All assertions, opinions, facts, and information presented in these articles are the sole responsibility of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of The Media Line, which assumes no responsibility for their content.