There is little that should truly surprise the world about the aggressive behaviour associated with what has come to be known as “Trumpism”. The approach openly challenges the rules, alliances and political norms that took shape after the Second World War and the defeat of Nazism.
What distinguishes the current moment is the return—now for a second term—of a US president who has cast aside the traditional diplomatic language that once softened American power. The polite gestures and carefully crafted statements of diplomacy have been replaced by blunt rhetoric and unapologetic assertions of dominance. In many ways, this represents a continuation of long-standing policies pursued by successive American administrations in the Middle East. While Republican presidents have often been more explicit in their approach, Democratic administrations have hardly acted as guardians of peace.
Since the late 1950s, major wars and military interventions have repeatedly targeted the region. During the presidencies of figures such as Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump, the Middle East has witnessed numerous military campaigns and operations. Trump’s rhetoric merely strips away the diplomatic façade that once masked these policies.
The slogan “America First”, frequently invoked by Trump, increasingly appears—at least in the Middle Eastern context—to translate into “Israel First”. Since beginning his second term, the president has repeatedly surprised allies and adversaries alike with sweeping decisions affecting domestic institutions and international alliances. Within the US itself, long-standing institutions have appeared unexpectedly fragile when confronted by the assertiveness of presidential authority, powerful billionaire networks and the growing influence of pro-Israel lobbying groups within American political decision-making.
Even Europe, Washington’s traditional ally across the Atlantic, has not been spared the abrasive tone of this new political style. Western European governments have faced pressure, public rebukes and economic threats—from trade tariffs to provocative discussions about acquiring Greenland. These tensions have pushed several European states to strengthen economic engagement with China, reflecting a broader shift in global alignments.
History shows that great powers have rarely hesitated to use overwhelming force against weaker states. The destruction of Carthage by Rome in 146 BCE stands as a stark reminder of how total victory can be accompanied by the annihilation of cities and the enslavement of populations. Later centuries witnessed similar examples, such as the partition of Africa during the Berlin Conference, when European powers redrew borders with little regard for the continent’s peoples.
Modern history offers equally troubling precedents. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 killed hundreds of thousands, while the invasion of Iraq in 2003 devastated an entire state. Such episodes raise a troubling question: has humanity truly progressed, or does raw power still dominate international relations when interests collide?
The current confrontation involving the United States, Israel, and Iran reflects the same logic of force. Military escalation and geopolitical rivalry risk destabilising the wider Gulf region, where economic stability and security are deeply interconnected.
Within Israel itself, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to view the present political environment as a historic opportunity. With strong backing from influential lobbying networks in Washington, Israel has expanded its regional ambitions while intensifying pressure on neighbouring states. Some analysts have linked this strategy to broader ideological narratives that blend political objectives with religious symbolism, presenting geopolitical conflict as part of a larger historical or prophetic struggle.
In this volatile context, the region faces a defining moment. Escalation between major powers risks engulfing the Middle East in a broader conflict that could devastate its economies and societies. Gulf states, alongside regional actors including Tehran, must exercise caution and strategic wisdom to prevent the situation from spiralling into a destructive confrontation that serves external agendas more than regional stability.
Amid these tensions, Oman has continued to uphold a diplomatic tradition grounded in dialogue, mediation and respect for international law. Such positions may not always be easy to maintain in times of turmoil, yet history often judges nations not by their power but by their moral clarity.
In moments of chaos and geopolitical reckoning, standing on the principled side of history may prove far more enduring than aligning with those who profit from war and destruction.
Translated by Badr al Dhafari. The original version of this article was published in Oman Arabic newspaper on March 16, 2026.
Yahya al Aufi nThe writer is a columnist
Oman Observer is now on the WhatsApp channel. Click here
