لحظة ادراك

!....On this day, we were there

At 8:00 a.m. on the sixth of November in the year 2016, exactly eight years ago, during a security training course with nine other colleagues over twelve days in the Russian Federation, something unusual happened. The lecturer—a man in his late sixties—entered the lecture hall. He didn’t begin with a recap of the previous lecture or ask if there were any questions to integrate prior information with what he would cover that day. Instead, he surprised us by beginning with a question: "Have you followed the results of the American election and the information suggesting Donald Trump's victory over Hillary Clinton? And what do you think of this surprise, given that most public opinion polls in the United States predicted her comfortable win?"

I looked around at my colleagues, hoping one of them would respond to this unexpected and unusual question. In my mind, I recalled the instructions we’d received before traveling, advising us not to engage in unnecessary political arguments that could inadvertently reflect views not aligned with the institution we represented or create friction with our hosts. However, after a quick mental review, I felt it would be inappropriate for none of us to respond. So, I took the initiative and answered. I can’t recall my exact words, but the gist of my response was as follows: "I followed the election campaigns of both candidates closely, especially Donald Trump's statements, particularly on the Palestinian issue, which is of primary concern to us. I saw nothing but complete bias toward Israel. I believe we are looking at four difficult years ahead with a foolish man who views the world solely through the lens of money. These will be years without any political horizon for our cause, and he will bring disaster upon the American people first and will harm our cause unprecedentedly."

The lecturer, surprised at the term "foolish," paused and asked, "How can a man be elected by such a majority to lead a great nation if he is as foolish as you say?" I replied, "The American public prioritizes its consumer needs and comfort above all else. Since Trump comes from a business background, they bet he would bring them economic comfort, without considering the risks of electing someone with such a limited understanding of international politics. They ignored the potential political chaos that could arise from his divisive outlook, his preference for the white majority, and his anti-immigration stance in a country founded on the concept of immigration."

The lecturer, with over forty years of experience in security and intelligence, did not delve further into my answer. Instead, he moved on, acknowledging that he had already used up too much time on review and questions, given the need for translation and responses.

This exchange with the lecturer, who clearly did not appreciate my answers, solidified my understanding that the Russian Federation placed significant importance on the election of this individual for reasons specific to them. It became apparent to me that Russia’s interest aligned with a U.S. president who would focus inward, retreating from global dominance and reducing its military presence abroad, contrary to the direction advocated by Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and later, Kamala Harris. This American retreat to domestic affairs served as a strategic goal for Russia and would lead to significant implications:

1. A decline in NATO's international influence, as it heavily relies on U.S. funding. Trump previously reduced this funding, placing financial strain on other Western countries, which Biden restored after winning the 2020 election. If Trump returns, he will likely re-implement such policies with force.

2. The steady flow of Western support for Ukraine, which has helped maintain its resilience, would be in jeopardy. President Zelensky would be left with two bitter options: to continue a war that has drained all resources, leading to massive debt, or to negotiate with Putin under Russia’s stated terms.

3. European countries would face a dilemma between continuing sanctions on Russia, in the absence of U.S. backing, or opting out to restore Russian gas supplies that once powered their economies before the Ukraine war.

4. In light of an American focus on domestic issues, China would also be forced to make critical decisions. Should Trump increase economic pressure on China, it would likely prompt Beijing to assert its geopolitical interests in the South China Sea militarily. If the status quo persists, however, this outcome might be avoided.

5. Iran finds itself in a difficult position, especially under renewed sanctions. Should it persist in its previous tit-for-tat strikes with Israel, it would likely face direct strikes on its nuclear program, supported by the U.S. Iran’s approach during the transitional period from Biden to Trump’s potential assumption of power could determine the future of its regional influence.

6. Lebanon, too, faces a critical juncture, forced to either accept Netanyahu’s terms to prevent conflict along the southern border under Biden’s administration or wait for Trump’s return with stricter conditions, likely escalating conflict and causing devastating consequences.

7. As for the Palestinian situation, it remains one of the biggest losers. After witnessing four years of Trump’s policies that significantly harmed the cause, we seem set to face the same policies again. With Gaza now under total siege and Netanyahu imposing terms unacceptable to Hamas, it is likely Netanyahu will further devastate Gaza, leaving the Palestinian cause almost forgotten.

This is the fate of a nation that allows fools and madmen to lead it. It hasn’t learned from the chaos Trump caused in his first term and, as if it has no memory, repeats the same experience, dragging the entire world into further turmoil. This is the game of democracy: you either accept it as it is, or reject it entirely.