Trump Between the Discourse of Division and the Contradictions of “Peace by Force” By Ali Abu Habla
Translated by Ibrahim Ebeid March 22/2026
Trump Between the Discourse of Division and the Contradictions of “Peace by Force”
By Ali Abu Habla
Translated by Ibrahim Ebeid March 22/2026
In a scene that reflects the depth of the shifts in US policy, US President Donald Trump’s remarks portraying his political opponents as the “biggest enemy” following a dangerous escalation in the region have sparked a wave of controversy inside and outside the United States. These statements are inseparable from the nature of the political discourse that has become dominant in the American scene, characterized by sharp polarization and the primacy of electoral interests over the requirements of responsible leadership.
The portrayal of the domestic political opponent as no less dangerous than the external adversaries represents a dangerous slippage in the democratic discourse and reflects a structural crisis within the American political system, where the competition between the two main parties is no longer based on programs and visions, but on betrayal and questioning of legitimacy. Hence, such discourse does not reflect the American people of all stripes, but rather reflects the orientations of a specific political current that seeks to mobilize its supporters by stoking fears and deepening division.
On the other hand, the stark contradiction is evident in Trump’s positions: he has long declared his rejection of the United States’ involvement in new wars, sought to present himself as a peacemaker, and even put his name forward for the Nobel Peace Prize. However, its practices and political rhetoric, grounded in threats and escalation, reflect a different approach: the imposition of facts by force, undermining the credibility of these allegations and calling into question their legitimacy.
What is happening in the region cannot be accurately described as a “religious war”, despite the ideological or religious dimensions of some discourses. Still, it is, in essence, a struggle for influence and strategic interests, in which energy calculations, security, and international alliances intertwine. However, the danger of the rhetoric lies in its tendency to give this conflict a civilized character, thereby increasing its complexity and fueling extremist tendencies on all sides.
In terms of regional repercussions, this American approach is directly reflected on the Middle East, which is on the verge of a broad explosion in light of the escalation of tensions, especially in light of the confrontation with Iran, and the accompanying possibilities of the conflict expanding to include multiple fronts, including the Palestinian arena, where settler attacks, the continuation of the occupation army’s campaigns, settlement expansion, and the closure of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and there is fear of imposing a de facto policy of annexation. In this context, the Palestinian cause once again seems to be a victim of international and regional balances that are employed to serve internal political calculations, away from the requirements of international justice and the resolutions of international legitimacy.
At the domestic level in the United States, the continuation of this escalatory rhetoric threatens to undermine the foundations of societal cohesion and reinforce polarization, potentially undermining the stability of the political system itself. The power of the great powers is measured not only by their military and economic capabilities, but also by their ability to maintain the unity of their internal fabric and the cohesion of their institutions.
Trump’s political experience cannot be assessed by slogans alone; it must be measured by actual results. If peace is a real goal, it is not achieved through escalation or dictates, but through just and sustainable solutions that address the root causes of conflicts. Therefore, any talk of deserving peace prizes depends on the extent to which these principles are actually adhered to, not merely political rhetoric.
Ultimately, Trump’s statements reflect a state of overlap between US domestic and foreign policy, as international crises are used as tools in internal political conflict, which imposes on the countries of the region, especially the Arab countries, the need to re-read the scene realistically, and to strengthen their diplomatic and political tools to protect their interests, at the heart of which is the Palestinian cause, which remains the real compass for any desired regional stability.
