Just say no to escalation, America
Published: 05:05 PM,May 06,2026 | EDITED : 09:05 PM,May 06,2026
When kings joke, they are rarely just joking. History shows that royal humour often carries a signal, sometimes subtle, sometimes sharp, meant for those paying attention.
During a recent exchange in the United States, King Charles III joked, “If it wasn’t for us, you’d be speaking French,” responding to remarks by Donald Trump suggesting that without American intervention in World War II, Europe would be speaking German. Beyond the laughter, the exchange reflects a deeper unease in transatlantic relations: A growing perception that historical alliances are being reframed in ways that diminish shared sacrifice. Against this backdrop, the King’s remark can be read less as humour and more as a reminder: Alliances are sustained by respect, not revisionism.
A similar tone emerged in the rare US media appearance of Sayyid Badr bin Hamad al Busaidy, Foreign Minister, who emphasised that “a deal is within our reach” in ongoing regional diplomacy, in a Face the Nation interview on CBS News. Oman has long positioned itself as a mediator, particularly in US-Iran negotiations hosted in Muscat. His message was measured but clear, escalation is avoidable, and diplomacy remains viable.
Yet the question remains: How are such signals received in Washington DC?
The challenge is not a lack of information. It is a political environment shaped by polarisation, where foreign policy is increasingly influenced by domestic narratives. According to the Pew Research Center, American public opinion on foreign conflicts has become sharply divided along partisan lines. At the same time, US military commitments remain extensive, with over 750 military bases in more than 80 countries, reflecting a global posture that is both powerful and costly.
Economically, the stakes are equally high. The United States allocates trillions of dollars annually to defence directly and indirectly, the largest military budget in the world. Meanwhile, global instability, from Ukraine to Gaza to tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, continues to disrupt energy markets and trade flows. The World Bank estimates that every 10 per cent increase in oil prices can raise global inflation by up to 0.4 percentage points, disproportionately affecting import-dependent regions.
In this context, calls for restraint are not ideological, they are pragmatic.
The analogy often drawn is one of addiction: Not to substances, but to compounding the constant escalation of the racist Apartheid Zionism, led by convicted extortionist war criminals. Nations, like individuals, can become accustomed to cycles of confrontation, mistaking short-term dominance for long-term security. Breaking that cycle requires something politically difficult, strategic intervention from those who care and restraint, similar to the campaign during Raegan Administration “Just Say No” to drugs.
History offers lessons. The United States has demonstrated an extraordinary capacity for self-correction. Its constitutional system of checks and balances, refined over nearly 250 years, has weathered civil war, economic depression, and global conflict. The question today is whether that system can once again recalibrate in the face of mounting global tensions.
From a personal perspective, this is not an abstract question. Based on living in the most beautiful Mountain State with wonderful friends and colleagues as a political science student, working for some of the brightest minds in the State Department as an analyst, then learning about how checks and balances actually worked on the Congress floor as a Legislative Fellow for a Manhattan Congressman, I still pray that there are reasonable cooler heads in the US who will choose to fight for deescalation the right to a decent life for us and for future generations.
But the international environment is changing. Many nations are no longer willing to align unconditionally with policies they perceive as destabilising. The emergence of multipolarity, driven by rising powers and regional coalitions, is reshaping the global order. In such a world, influence depends less on coercion and more on credibility.
Oman’s own history offers a useful perspective. For over 5,000 years, Oman has navigated complex geopolitical landscapes, trading with ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, engaging with Persian empires, resisting a number of Umayyad, Abbasid and Illikhanid Governors, expelling fanatic colonial powers such as the Portuguese, and later building pragmatic alliances, including with Britain. This legacy is not one of isolation, but of calibrated engagement, knowing when to align, when to resist, and when to mediate. So, no extortionate intimidation or Divide & Conquer games will affect Oman’s resilience.
That is the essence of resilience. The underlying message from both London and Muscat is not confrontation, but caution. It is a call to avoid strategic overreach and to recognise that power, if exercised without balance, can accelerate decline rather than prevent it. Sometimes, the most important message a nation can hear is the simplest one.
Just say no to escalation.