Since entering the White House on January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump has been signing dozens of executive orders daily and making numerous controversial media statements that ignite disputes and conflicts both domestically in the U.S. and with other countries.
Many of these statements starkly contradict international law, the United Nations Charter, and the traditions of American foreign policy. It can be argued that if Trump’s policies continue in this manner, they will undermine the foundations of the current international system and increase the risks of chaos, conflict, and instability in the world.
Trump is not an ordinary president; he has shocking ideas and plans that provoke astonishment, surprise, and confusion. Typically, these are vague ideas that signal a goal without clarifying how and by what means it will be achieved. They lack legal or factual foundations, and their content and details change from one statement to another, repeated with confident phrases from time to time, creating an atmosphere of ambiguity, suspicion, and distrust. These statements represent a form of “calculated risk,” which fosters a climate of “organized chaos” within which Trump believes he can achieve his objectives and seal the deals he desires.
Displacement of Palestinians:
Perhaps the first issue in this regard is what Trump has called the “transfer” of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip to Egypt and Jordan. His statements have varied from suggesting a “temporary transfer” until Gaza is rebuilt, to a permanent exile. He has also fluctuated between claiming that the United States would control Gaza or buy it, or own it, without clarifying how this ownership would be realized. His positions have ranged from expressing that he is “in no hurry,” to strongly reintroducing the topic in a press conference prior to his meeting with Jordan’s King Abdullah II on February 11, confirming his commitment to his idea and expressing confidence in persuading relevant Arab countries. Trump also indicated he might allocate areas of Gaza to other countries for reconstruction and noted he was communicating with several countries to facilitate Palestinians relocating there to live safely and without facing violence, as he put it.
Trump uses the diplomatic term “transfer,” which actually means the displacement of Palestinians from their homeland. He views Gaza through the lens of a real estate developer who sees it as a prime location on the Mediterranean coast, painting an alluring image comparable to the French Riviera.
The problem with this idea is that Palestinians do not wish to leave their homes and understand that once they leave their land, they are unlikely to return. Arab countries reject accepting this displacement as it signifies the liquidation of the Palestinian cause. There are obvious questions Trump does not address: How will the U.S. own or control Gaza? Who will bear the costs of reconstruction considering he will not use the American budget for this purpose and Arab countries have rejected participating in his plan? Who will force the Palestinians to leave, and how?
The idea carries political and security risks and has negative effects on Arab-American relations and stability in the Middle East. Its introduction poses a threat to the implementation of the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, threatening the potential resumption of violence in the region. Both Egypt and Jordan reject cooperating in executing this idea. This means Washington would need to exert political and economic pressure on these two countries, as Trump has already threatened, which would lead to a deterioration of bilateral relations and affect American strategic interests in the region.
This is underscored by the fact that all Arab countries, which are partners and friends of Washington, reject the idea of displacement and have made their positions clear in the statements they issued. A conference was held for the foreign ministers of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar, with participation from a representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Secretary-General of the Arab League on February 1, which rejected any suggestions regarding the displacement of Palestinians, affirming that the solution lies in establishing a Palestinian state on lands occupied since June 1967. The foreign ministers of the five countries sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio containing these sentiments. Communications have also begun for a mini-summit in Riyadh, followed by an emergency Arab summit in Cairo on February 27.
Manufacturing Chaos:
Trump’s statements and stances on Middle Eastern issues, since taking office, have led to a state of instability manifested in the following:
- Increased tension in relations between Israel and the Arab countries that have established diplomatic ties, especially after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu criticized Saudi Arabia’s stance, claiming that if it were genuinely interested in establishing a Palestinian state, it could do so on its vast territory. The Egyptian Foreign Ministry described these remarks as “irresponsible,” “reckless,” “outlandish,” and “foolhardy,” categorically rejecting them, while a statement from the UAE termed them “provocative” and “unacceptable.” Similar statements were issued by Jordan, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan.
- Attempts by Trump to persuade other Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia, to establish diplomatic relations with Israel have stalled. The Kingdom has linked its position to Israel agreeing to a two-state solution, with the Saudi Foreign Ministry’s statement on February 5 confirming that it would not establish relations with Israel without its approval of a Palestinian state.
- Trump’s ideas have bolstered the far-right wing in Israel, fueling ambitions for further expansion into the West Bank, especially following his remarks about Israel’s small size. This was evident in his meeting with Netanyahu in Washington on February 4, where he provided political and military support to Israel. For instance, he lifted restrictions imposed by the Biden administration on the sale of certain advanced types of weapons and ammunition, approving a new arms deal worth $7.4 billion, including the GBU-43/B bomb, weighing 11 tons, which is one of the most powerful non-nuclear weapons and designed to destroy deep underground bunkers, potentially usable by Israel against Iranian nuclear and missile sites.
This American support has increased Netanyahu’s sense of power, as evidenced by his statements claiming that the idea of a Palestinian state ended after October 7, 2023, asserting that peace is achieved through strength, and that when Israel completes its destruction of the “Iranian axis,” it will pave the way for agreements with Saudi Arabia and other countries. Netanyahu has also expanded accusations against Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, claiming that Egypt is “keeping the residents of Gaza in a large prison and refuses to let them out,” provoking a strong Egyptian response that condemned these statements, calling them a deliberate attempt to obscure Israel’s destruction of Gaza.
- The enduring crisis between Trump and Iran has escalated, as the American president adopted a stance that combined promises and threats. On February 4, Trump signed a presidential memorandum to reinstate “maximum sanctions” on Tehran due to its nuclear weapon development efforts, which included revoking the exemption granted to Iraq for importing electricity and gas from Iran and preventing Tehran from using the Iraqi financial system to evade sanctions. He declared that the U.S. has the right to prevent Iran from selling oil to other countries, including China, driving its oil exports to “zero.” He warned that if Iran attempted to assassinate him, “we will destroy them” and expressed hope that this memorandum would not be executed, indicating his desire to reach an agreement with Iran.
Trump reiterated his threat on February 6, indicating he had a solid plan to erase Iran in case of an assassination attempt. In another statement, he mentioned that he preferred an agreement with Iran instead of bombing it, adding that Israel would not strike Iran if an agreement with Washington was reached.
Tehran, on its part, understood that Trump’s approach entailed “negotiating from a position of power and under the threat of economic and military pressure.” Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, responded on February 7, stating that negotiations with Washington are neither a wise, intelligent, nor honorable approach, and that Iran’s problems would not be solved by negotiating with Trump, given his decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018. Three days later, Iranian President Masoud Bezhakian stated that Trump’s invitation was insincere, while his Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, confirmed that Iran would not negotiate under pressure and threats of force and that Washington’s aim was “to negotiate surrender.”
Iran did not settle for just announcing political positions and statements; it also sent other messages. On February 2, Tehran unveiled the “Etemad” missile, capable of reaching 1,700 kilometers, representing its latest long-range ballistic missile, alongside an underground missile base targeted at ships and advancements in satellite technology. On February 8, the Supreme Leader received a delegation from Hamas that congratulated him on the anniversary of the Iranian revolution.
- Unstable oil prices have emerged as a consequence of Trump’s call for Saudi Arabia and OPEC countries to increase oil production to lower prices. In his speech delivered online at the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 23, Trump urged that if oil prices were lowered, the war in Ukraine would end. The Saudi Minister of Economy’s comment at the same conference was that the goal of the Kingdom and OPEC is to stabilize the oil market in the long term. It seems that Trump’s policies have had the opposite effect of his intentions, as his decision on February 10 to impose a 25% tariff on all steel and aluminum imports to the U.S. has driven oil prices up.
- Increased tension and uncertainty in other regional issues, including Trump’s statement on January 30 that he is considering maintaining U.S. forces in Syria and plans to make a decision soon. This includes comments by Deputy U.S. envoy to the Middle East, Morgan Ortagus, in Beirut, urging that Hezbollah not be included in the Lebanese government; prompting the Lebanese presidency to issue a statement distancing itself from these remarks. Additionally, Trump ordered the U.S. State Department to suspend all aid provided by USAID to developing countries, affecting thousands of students and hundreds of non-governmental organizations.
In conclusion, the picture painted by this scenario of the Middle East is alarming and filled with dangers, political tensions, and potential chaos and armed conflict. Many of these issues predate Trump’s presidency, but his shocking ideas and provocative statements have escalated their intensity, particularly those concerning the displacement of Palestinians and turning Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East,” as he has described it. The result is a climate of uncertainty, doubt, and chaos, suggesting that the Middle East exists on a hot plate.
