Afrasianet - Under the title of Issues and Opinions, Mr. Jassim Al-Mohammad Ali writes: Anyone who reads President Donald Trump's administration's latest 33-page National Security Strategy document on the architecture of U.S. national security will find itself in front of a political text that expresses with unprecedented clarity the reproduction of the classic U.S. imperialist vision in the region. The document does not hesitate to prioritize Washington's vital interests, and it does not hesitate to establish its economic interests and unilateral position in the international system as the firm pillars of its foreign policy.
This document shows, to a great extent, that Washington does not consider its commitments to its allies to be principled, but always subordinates them to the logic of direct benefit, and that it will work to limit any regional or international power that may seek to compete with it or limit its influence. The priority of preserving Israel's security is presented in the document as a foundational element that cannot be negotiated, through which the role of the region is reformulated within the broader American vision.
Here arises the question that a free man cannot overcome: Is there a clearer formulation to reveal the purely pragmatic dimension of the American performance towards the region? Can it be said that Washington is approaching the issues of the region from the perspective of stabilization, or is it seeking, with full awareness, to reproduce a state of political, economic, and security dependence that guarantees the continuation of Arab dependence on it, in order to serve its strategic perceptions and consolidate its superiority?
Then: Can the United States be considered a legitimate alternative to the people's support for its regimes, which, as the facts indicate, has always worked to limit the role of the people and favor fragile regimes that are in conflict with their societies, with the aim of consolidating their constant need for American cover in managing the interior and suppressing contradictions?
In recent decades, the Arab region has not witnessed a phase in which the US administration has been openly aware of the dimensions of its authoritarian project, as we are witnessing today in Trump's strategy. However, the dilemma is not in the clarity of this project, but in the readiness of the official Arab regime to identify with it and adapt its political, economic, and security maps in line with the Western will, despite the violation of the sovereignty of the nation and the right of its peoples to freedom and dignity.
This raises another deeper question: Does resistance to the American-Israeli hegemonic project seem to be a romantic choice that transcends reality, or has it become, according to this scene, an existential choice for every individual who sees in himself a human value worthy of defending its independence and sanctity, regardless of his ideological affiliation or religious system?
What is striking today is the growing tendency of some elites to move beyond the stark realities in search of narratives of "realism" and "wisdom," which are often at their core attitudes that reproduce the morality of defeat and internalize impotence rather than confront its causes. Worryingly, these approaches only serve to entrench the structure of weakness and impede the ability to build a free and responsible attitude toward challenges.
Therefore, the question remains: how long will some elites continue to be inclined to justify and submit, for fear of the cost of confrontation, even though the cost of capitulation in the long term is immeasurably greater, and almost to the point of complete disappearance in the face of an imperialist project that redraws the region according to its exclusive interests?
* Writer from The Arabian Peninsula
