Trump in the Middle East Scene: War-Monger or Peacemaker?

US President Donald Trump appears to be one of the most controversial and contradictory presidents in the history of American foreign policy, especially in his dealings with Middle Eastern issues. The man who sometimes speaks of a “peace council” and invites world leaders to join it is the same one who does not hesitate to issue crude threats to European and Latin American countries, and even to traditional allies, in language that leaves no room for friendliness and diplomacy.
This stark contradiction has led to a sharp division among analysts regarding Trump's personality and policies. Some see him as a pragmatic politician who uses shock and threats as negotiation tools, while others consider him an unstable personality, driven by a showmanship impulse, whose foreign policies are managed according to the agenda of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the pressures of the extremist Zionist lobby within the United States.
In recent weeks, there has been a significant escalation in talk about the possibility of an American military strike against Iran, placing the entire region on the brink of unprecedented tension. Fleets are moving, statements are threatening, and political and media mobilizations warn that the Middle East is on a strategic hotplate. The fundamental question here is: Are we facing the beginning of a major confrontation, or is it merely a game of “finger-biting” that has not yet reached its decisive moment?
Iran, for its part, practiced a policy of self-restraint during the first round of escalation, and did not respond militarily to the American strikes that targeted its nuclear facilities, in a clear attempt to contain the confrontation and prevent it from sliding into an open war. However, the change in the tone of American discourse, and the increasing talk about “regime change” in Tehran, places the Iranian leadership before a completely different equation: defending the state and sovereignty whatever the cost.
No one has certainty about the nature, scale, or timing of a potential Iranian response. But what is certain is that Iran, while not relying on traditional military superiority, adopts a different combat doctrine based on exhausting the adversary, undermining its prestige, and threatening its vital interests in the region. In the event of a comprehensive confrontation, the United States will not emerge without political and military losses, and perhaps an erosion of its image as an untouchable dominant power.
In contrast, political regimes in the Arab and Islamic world are experiencing a state of weakness and helplessness, making them unable to bear the cost of any new imbalance of power. However, this official weakness does not necessarily reflect the mood of the peoples, who see American policies, biased towards Israel, as a direct partner in wars and destruction, especially in Gaza. This fuels feelings of anger and a desire for revenge, and portends long-term transformations in the relationship of the region's peoples with the United States and its allies.
Internationally, Tehran undoubtedly relies on supportive or understanding stances from major powers such as Russia and China, amidst escalating international competition and Washington's declining ability to impose its will unilaterally. Moreover, reading the political map within the United States itself reveals that Iran, in reality, does not pose a direct threat to American national security, or even to Israel, unless the latter initiates a large-scale military action that draws American interests into the heart of the confrontation.
From this perspective, the chances of Trump obtaining authorization from Congress to launch a major military strike against Iran appear very slim. Any تجاوز of the American constitution in this context could open the door to serious legal and political accountability, and bring back to the forefront issues of impeachment and removal, in addition to the moral and political corruption cases that have plagued Trump for years.
The summary of the scene is that the region today stands at a very dangerous moment, where calculations of power, political arrogance, and electoral exploitation intertwine with a fragile regional reality burdened with wounds. If a confrontation occurs, it will not be without repercussions and consequences that transcend geographical and political boundaries. Only the coming days, with their surprises, will reveal whether Trump is a war-monger or a peacemaker who loves to play on the edge of the abyss.