We live in a gray world. A world where the line between democracies and authoritarian regimes appears increasingly blurred. A world defined by the extreme polarization of societies, endlessly debating yet unable to engage in genuine dialogue — both with one another and within themselves. In the age of post-truth, relativism reigns. Everything is of equal value. And nothing holds any value anymore.
Donald Trump could be reelected as the leader of the world's foremost power in the coming hours. There is no reason to celebrate, nor even to downplay the situation. The Republican candidate is a populist, racist, sexist, climate change skeptic who scorns the rule of law and respects nothing but his own ego. A second term under his leadership would deepen divisions within American society and could have dire consequences on the global stage — on climate change, on Ukraine and of course, in the Middle East.
But the Middle East sees things differently. In 2020, a significant portion of the region openly favored the American billionaire. His leniency toward authoritarian regimes and his tough stance on Iran resonated with many of the region's leaders. His business-oriented approach to international relations, brash rhetoric, and constant posturing have also contributed to his success in the region.
Four years later, the trend seems even more pronounced, especially within public opinion. This is evident, for instance, in the shift among Arab Americans, who, according to a poll by Arab News/YouGov published on Monday, Oct. 22, now favor the former president over the current vice president (45% to 43%). Donald Trump has gained ground, but it's mostly the Democrats who have lost it. At best, they are perceived as powerless. At worst, as accomplices in a potential genocide in Gaza.
So why would Donald Trump be worse than his opponent? What could be worse than genocide? This logic leads some to downplay the significance of the election results or even argue that the Republican candidate is more likely than Kamala Harris to pressure Israel and bring an end to the war. ‘He’s crazy, but at least he’s strong’ — this captures the prevailing mindset in the region.
This wager seems highly risky. Certainly, the Biden administration bears significant responsibility for the Gaza tragedy. It has provided Israel with weapons and ammunition, offered political support, and fought against every judicial institution that tried to hold him accountable. It may detest Benjamin Netanyahu, it may have criticized the way this war has been waged, but in essence it has never contested it.
But who can claim that Donald Trump — the man who recognized the annexation of the Golan, acknowledged Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, cut funding to UNRWA, never hid his contempt for the Palestinian Authority, brokered the Abraham Accords and owes part of his success to an evangelical base that is unwavering in its support for Israel — would have done better? Who's to say it wouldn't have been even worse?
The Republican candidate is an isolationist who believes only in power dynamics. At the same time, he’s a man convinced of his own genius, with an ego that could drive him to present himself as the region’s ultimate dealmaker. It’s possible that Donald Trump could exert more influence over Israel, though this is highly debatable given his voter base. Likewise, he might succeed in halting the war, potentially through an agreement with Gulf countries, though his room for maneuver appears very limited.
But it is also possible that the Republican candidate gives Tel Aviv a green light to escalate further, approves the occupation of part of the Palestinian enclave or even part of Lebanon and intervenes directly against Iran. The goal would not be a prolonged war or regime change, but rather to strike hard — specifically targeting Iran's nuclear infrastructure — so that the Iranian regime is forced to accept defeat.
A Donald Trump victory would prolong the war, both in Gaza and Lebanon, at least until January. After his inauguration, it would add yet another layer of uncertainty to an already highly unstable region. From chaos to chaos. Brutal force, if not paired with a political vision, will not resolve anything in the region. Yet, sadly, the region still has not understood this.