����ֱ��

Listening to the speeches of US President Donald Trump leaves one with the impression that the man is convinced he can change realities he does not like.
Theoretically, this conviction could be well-founded. He is the absolute ruler of the most powerful country in the world. I use the word “absolute” deliberately; over the past few months, since assuming office on Jan. 20, Trump has managed to seize control of institutions through executive orders, marginalized the opposition and personalized the national interest. He has diminished international relations in ways that remind us of the famous phrase “L’Etat, c’est moi” (“I am the state”), widely attributed to France’s Louis XIV, who ruled from 1643 to 1715.
Since he came to shape the course of events, everyone (rivals before allies) has acquiesced to playing the role of mere spectator.
Among them are the major competing powers: China and Russia, NATO and other countries that have long convinced themselves they are “friends” of Washington.
So far, everyone has engaged with Trump’s beliefs, actions and statements depending on their priorities, but the outcome is always the same. To this day, people rightly have the sense that confronting a US president who enjoys a clear and fresh popular mandate is futile. Thanks to that mandate, he has monopolized all the levers of governance:
An absolutely loyal inner circle has been appointed to run all the agencies and departments of the executive branch.
His party has a majority in Congress that is bolstered by a populist wave.
An ideologically conservative judiciary that shares the administration’s views and interests.
A tamed media, either by owners or outside pressure. Even digital and “smart” media alternatives and those who are “too clever for their own good” have been brought to heel.
A billionaire elite that find themselves completely unshackled. Indeed, they have been empowered to do whatever serves their interests and to crush any challenge to those interests.
Accordingly, unless something wholly unforeseen occurs, this “adaptation” to Trump will continue, at least until the midterm elections. His trial-and-error approach to both domestic and international issues will persist. And this brings us back to the question of Trump’s ability to change the realities that bug him.
Are the states’ considerations not shifting? Are there not lessons to be learned from a gamble here, a misadventure there and a disappointment somewhere in between? Are there not unforeseen circumstances that have not been accounted for, such as natural disasters?
Moreover, the global reach of the Trumpian experiment might well be a double-edged sword. While Washington’s policies may be bolstered by the experiences of certain governments (whether in Europe or Latin America), the emergence of “Make America Great Again” clones and the posturing of those who pretend to belong to the MAGA camp could aggravate contradictions in countries whose societies are less resilient or flexible than the US — societies that might not accept what the US public has been accepting.
Whether Trump succeeds or fails between now and the midterm elections scheduled for Nov. 3, 2026, the implications will be global.
Raising the stakes (especially in global hot zones like Ukraine, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent and Taiwan), the American president is a “dealmaker” who relies more on instinct and public relations than on long-term strategic planning.
That is why absolute loyalty, personal friendships and financial partnerships have largely determined his appointments of aides, advisers and Cabinet members. That is a break with the approach of most of his Republican and Democratic predecessors.
This has meant that many critical responsibilities have been handed over to figures who are widely seen as controversial or underqualified. In fact, some of them are now beginning to lose the trust of even the hardcore ideological MAGA base, including media figures and activists like Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes.

The emergence of MAGA clones could aggravate contradictions in countries whose societies are less flexible than the US.

Eyad Abu Shakra

As for the Middle East, particularly the question of Palestine, Trump’s handling of both Iran and Israel has begun to impose itself on political discourse, at least in the media and online.
Strikingly, the white Christian right in America has publicly criticized Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies. Chief among their complaints is the accusation that both Netanyahu and the American Jewish right are pushing Washington into war with Iran to serve the Likud and Israel’s agenda.
While they may differ on the details, several European countries, especially the UK, may be entering a phase of reassessment in their party politics.
In Britain, where the current Labour government stands unapologetically with Israel, the political left has begun to shake things up. It was last week announced that a new left-wing party is in the pipeline, led by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and MP Zarah Sultana, both of whom are vocal supporters of the Palestinian cause.
This was followed by early signs of a reconfiguration on the political right, with a new far-right party, Restore Britain, emerging. It is even more right-wing than the hard-line, anti-immigrant Reform UK.
For this reason, I believe that between now and November 2026, Washington could, given the lack of real solutions to international crises, lay the groundwork for significant transformations outside the US. I believe that the fodder for these shifts will largely be: religious extremism, racial hatred and socioeconomic hardship.

• Eyad Abu Shakra is managing editor of Asharq Al-Awsat, where this article was originally published. X: @eyad1949