لحظة ادراك

 ?From Clay to Quagmire: How Was Donald Trump Dragged from the Dream into the Swamp

Between the “engineering” of the Middle East and reshaping it into a mire, Benjamin Netanyahu was never merely a prime minister of a state seeking its security. Throughout his years in power, he acted as a masterful architect of redefining threats, reshaping priorities, and pulling allies to where he wanted—not where they intended to go. He did not present himself as an ordinary politician, but as the sole interpreter of the Middle East’s “text,” as if the region could only be seen through his eyes and governed by his logic.

This is how the story began: a “New Middle East”—a dazzling, polished idea of a region to be re-engineered, where old balances of power would be broken and alliances rebuilt according to threats, not geography. What was left unsaid at the time, however, is that this “new” vision was not a project of stability, but one of managing chaos… a controlled chaos that keeps الجميع in a constant state of anxiety, while ensuring Israel remains in a perpetual position of needing support—as the sole “reliable partner” in the Middle East.

Netanyahu did not persuade Washington to wage wars; he convinced it that wars were the only alternative to collapse. He did not tell Americans, “Come into the fire,” but rather, “The fire is coming to you—and if we do not extinguish it here, it will ignite over there.” With this skill, the Middle East ceased to be, in the American consciousness, a region of interests, and became instead a moving landscape of existential threats—threats that would consume those interests if not addressed on Netanyahu’s timetable.

Donald Trump came to power—a man who dislikes complexity and trusts only in deals. Netanyahu saw in him a golden opportunity: a president for whom the world could be reduced to a simple equation—“We are the good, and they are chaos.” From here began the gradual shift: from engineering to engagement, from engagement to full alignment, from alignment to entanglement, and from entanglement to partnership.

The “Deal of the Century” was not merely a political plan; it was an unwritten declaration that Washington was no longer a mediator, but a party to the conflict. The recognition of Jerusalem and the relocation of the embassy were not just decisions—they were clear signals that a single narrative had become official policy. Yet the paradox that American decision-makers failed to grasp is this: “Whoever enters the Middle East through the door of a final solution quickly finds themselves lost in an endless maze of beginnings.” From here, the ground began to shift—from clay to quagmire.

Gaza emerged not merely as a humanitarian issue, but as a real test: can force impose an ending, or does it only open new doors to chaos? Netanyahu, who had mastered the art of calibrated escalation, no longer settled for managing crises—he began manufacturing them as a political necessity for survival. Every open front, every combustible tension, every deferred threat became another thread tightening Washington’s bond into deeper partnership on the ground—even if that partnership resembled a council far removed from the making of peace.

Lebanon, then Syria, then Yemen, then Iraq—leading to the crown jewel: Iran. Presented to Trump in his first term as a deferred existential threat that never dies, demanding engagement at least at a minimal level. Trump responded by withdrawing from the agreement forged by his predecessor, Barack Obama, and followed it with the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force. All were threads with which Netanyahu tightly bound Washington.

In Trump’s second term, the United States no longer merely leads the scene—it has gradually become part of it. Here lies Netanyahu’s brilliance: he did not just draw the U.S. into two direct wars, but into a condition from which it cannot withdraw. He made its presence a necessity, and its absence a risk. All options have become bad ones: if it stays, it sinks; if it leaves, its image collapses in the eyes of those it promised a permanent security umbrella—especially after securing investments worth trillions of dollars only months earlier.

Thus, the “New Middle East” transformed from a theoretical engineering project into a living strategic quagmire. The difference between clay and quagmire is that clay can be shaped, while a quagmire swallows those who try to stand upon it. Today, Washington appears to be standing in the middle of this mire, struggling to maintain balance—between supporting an ally that cannot stop, and safeguarding global interests that cannot endure further exhaustion.

As for Netanyahu, he continues to play his favorite game: expanding the دائرة الخطر to present himself as the only possible solution. Yet the pressing question now is this: after three weeks of a fierce war, and the resounding failure of the initial plan—which aimed for the سقوط of the “Velayat-e Faqih” regime within its first week, following mass targeting of its leadership to trigger popular uprisings—does he still hold the threads, or have those threads begun to tighten around الجميع?

In the Middle East, wars rarely end as planned, and alliances rarely remain as they began. Perhaps, at some moment, everyone—in Tel Aviv as in Washington—will discover that the road from “engineering” to “quagmire” was not a sudden slip. It was preceded by a long path they walked, believing they controlled it—simply because they ignored a fundamental rule:

Just as enduring engineering requires solid and resilient foundations, the engineering of human societies and the sustainability of their existence require equally firm foundations—freedom, justice, and equality among people. Otherwise, the swamps are the logical alternative.