Will Trump Become The Gorbachev Of US Imperialism?

Tahir Mahmoud

Analyzing Donald Trump’s “statecraft”, Crescent International had written in 2019 that the only certainty about him and his regime is its uncertainty. This remains the case for Trump’s next term as well that will begin in January 2025.

Anyone trying to apply normative political and international relations theories in understanding Trump’s next four years will likely miss the mark. There will be no consistent framework in understanding and analyzing American policies for the next four years as it will all be based on Trump’s personal feelings.

He is a loose canon with very limited understanding of geopolitics or economic principles despite his becoming a billionaire largely throught fraudulent means. This became evident, yet again, during his three-hour podcast conversation with Joe Rogan. At one point during the podcast, “genius” Donald was referring to tariffs from 1888 to explain how the tariffs framework will resolve economic issues in 2025.

While it is difficult to foresee exactly how his policies will unfold, it is possible to draw up a general framework of what the strategy of Trump’s opponents will be against his regime during his new term in office.

It should be remembered that during his four years in office as president, Trump will have to deal with internal enemies and external competitors. His internal enemies are likely to be much more vicious than the challenges he will face externally.

On the internal front, the US political establishment will attempt to derail and undermine Trump in many different ways. The track record of the US political elite shows that they will be ruthless towards each other.

A good example of this reality is how in October 2023, BBC journalist Sam Cabral while recounting the situation concerning the ouster of Kevin McCarthy as speaker of the House of Representatives, reported the following incident: “Two Democratic lawmakers got into the elevator as I was leaving the vote. ‘Let the civil war begin,’ said one. The other laughed heartily.”

Another example of the internal challenges the Trump regime is likely to face is his predecssor Joe Biden’s authorization, during his twilight days, for its Ukrainian proxy to launch deep strikes inside Russian territory using NATO-supplied weapons. Even pro-western analysts acknowledge that this move will not yield a strategic advantage for Ukraine or NATO against Russia. As such, the most plausible explanation for this provocative gamble lies in domestic political considerations—an observation shared by both Trump supporters and critics alike.

Every economic, political and legal policy of the regime will be stalled and face a push back internally. This is to ensure that Trump appears incompetent.

On the internal front, since the US political system contains multiple contradictory mechanisms, the American political caste opposed to Trump will easily manage to camouflage their political war as legal and within the bounds of America’s archaic constitution.

Internal political chaos generated by anti-Trumpists will have a strong impact in the foreign policy and economic domains. Trump pledged during the election campaign that he wants to improve America’s declining economy.

The primary policy tool through which Trump assumes this will be achieved is through tariffs. While there are some economic gains the US can achieve via tariffs, Trump does not fully understand that there are winners and losers from opening a trade war via tariffs.

In the US, many multinational companies win big from the current economic set-up. Others will suffer from transfer of labor abroad. They will be the big losers.

For example, many US-based pharmaceutical companies outsource drug production to countries with lower manufacturing costs. This enables them to maximize returns while keeping domestic prices high.

Once a cornerstone of the US economy, textile manufacturing has largely moved to countries like Bangladesh and Vietnam, where labor is significantly lower. The US clothing brand Levi’s outsources most of its production overseas, thus reducing costs but it has resulted in shutting down domestic manufacturing plants.

The anti-Trump faction in the US establishment is likely to rally a segment of the wealthy elite who stand to be negatively impacted by Trump’s economic policies. Launching a tariffs’ war, will almost certainly lead to a trade war with China and others.

Trump does not fully understand that China has a huge domestic market and is the main trading partner of many countries in the world. China is also in overdrive to improving the quality of its products. This means that Beijing will lose less from a trade war with the US, especially since China had planned for this turn of events much earlier.

While Trump’s tariff policies are mainly aimed at China, Beijing is not the only target of the upcoming trade tariff policies. Traditional American allies like Canada are also on Trump’s radar.

The American business and political elite, which includes Trump, still carry the mindset of the late 1990s. They assume that other states are significantly weaker than America and fear Washington.

American economic wars are unravelling because the world trades with Islamic Iran, Russia, China and other US sanctioned countries. Other countries are no longer willing to forgo their economic interests to please the US. The American political elite are either oblivious or ignore this reality.

The above factors indicate that receivers of the US economic and political blows have multiple ways through which they can retaliate against economic bullying. Most importantly entities like BRICS, China and many others, have the political will to pushback against US imperialism.

America’s rivals understand that the Trump regime will lack coherence and predictability. This means that even if Trump attempts to make deals and calm tensions, he will not be trusted. Any deal that Trump makes and upholds it, might be broken once he leaves office.

Thus, America is no longer seen as a reliable partner or a rational state entity. This will make others far more reluctant in pursuing serious long-term political and economic projects with Washington.

China, Iran, Russia, BRICS and others are likely to formulate a strategy where they will deal with Trump’s caprices in unconventional ways. What those might be is yet to be seen but they will be formulated on a case by case basis.

Trump’s narcissism will be the primary factor in dealing with and understanding the US for the next four years. This is going to create an unparalleled opportunity for external parties. They will have powerful and determined internal allies willing to do anything to see the Trump regime fail. Trump will likely use this as an opportunity to weaponize the state system against his internal enemies. This will lead to a vicious internal circle of political turf wars.

Overall, from now on, America is all about personalities rather than institutions and policies.

During the last several years of Soviet Union’s “superpower” status the Soviet regime’s statecraft began to be formulated by Mikhail Gorbachev and his inner circle. The USSR was stripped of its ideological framework, institutional culture and strategic coherence. Something very similar is unfolding in the US today. The Trump regime will simply take this to another level.

Donald Trump

Premature Celebration? Saudi and UAE Leaders Too Optimistic About Trump

Kevin Barrett

When news broke that Donald Trump had been selected President—not by the voters, but by America’s billionaire oligarchs and their black box voting machines—Saudi and Emirati leaders emitted congratulatory yelps and yaps. According to Middle East Eye, “Saudi Arabia’s King Salman and his son, de facto ruler Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, sent cables to Trump hailing the ‘close relations between the two friendly countries and peoples, which everyone seeks to strengthen and develop in all fields.’”

Not to be outdone, UAE President Mohamed Bin Zayed tweeted to “extend my sincere congratulations to @realDonaldTrump on his election as 47th President of the United States and @JDVance on his election as Vice President. In building upon over five decades of strategic bilateral cooperation, the UAE and US are united by our enduring partnership based on shared ambitions for progress…”

Most observers think the blathering Saudi and Emirati leaders were sincere—if the word sincere can apply to such people—in their preference for Trump over Democrats like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Trump is their kind of guy: a corrupt, nepotistic, shrewd but not-especially-bright wheeler-dealer bereft of morality and ethics. What’s more, he’s their guy. Trump has engaged in dubious business dealings with both royal houses, and they undoubted have something on him, though perhaps less than Jeffrey Epstein had.

What’s more, Trump’s Kosher Nostra princeling son-in-law, the ultra-zionist Jared Kushner, supposedly has some sort of personal friendship with MBS that greases the wheels of their multi-billion-dollar deals. Indeed, Democrats have accused Kushner of being an unregistered agent of Saudi Arabia. (That he is an unregistered agent of Israel goes without saying.)

So Bin Salman and Bin Zayed appear to be joyously welcoming Trump’s impending return to the White House, believing that it will give them an edge in regional power games, and possibly even magically solve West Asia’s many problems, the biggest of which is the zionist genocide of Palestine. Such optimism, however, is misguided.

The Gulf autocrats’ views of Trump are colored by their corrupt business relationships with him. MBS and MBZ may be congenitally incapable of forming clear-eyed evaluations of what Trump and his regime, fronting for the zionist-occupied American deep state, have planned for the region.

Kushner, Trump’s closest advisor on West Asian affairs, is an unsophisticated and unreflective zionist. Kushner’s ultra-zionism, formed by his upbringing in an American Jewish organized crime family, makes him defer to Netanyahu—who in turn defers to the likes of Smotrich and Ben Gvir. Both openly call for the complete genocide of Palestinians, the demolition of Majid al-Aqsa, and the eventual establishment of Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates.

Even if those goals were acceptable to MBS and MBZ, their people would never allow them to be complicit in crimes against humanity on such a grand scale. So there is a fundamental clash of interests between the Trump camp, which is owned by Netanyahu and his extremist backers, and the Saudi and Emirati states.

During Trump’s first term, MBS and MBZ made the fatal mistake of misreading Trump and embracing what they took to be his agenda: “killing the zionist extremists with kindness.” According to that model, if Arab nations proffered a path to peace and normal relations with the zionist entity, the zionists would scale back their genocidal and expansionist designs, and finally accept the sine qua non of a fully independent Palestinian state based on zionist withdrawal from all lands stolen in 1967.

If Trump were really in charge of his regime, and advised by well-informed realists, such a peace plan might actually have a chance. Trump is a narcissist who would love to go down in history as the president who brought peace to West Asia. But what MBS and MBZ don’t understand, or don’t want to understand, is that Trump is owned by ultra-zionists, starting with his own son-in-law. The chances that Trump will do what would be necessary to forge a durable peace—order the Israelis to relinquish their ill-gotten 1967 gains, including Jerusalem al-Quds—are not slim-to-none, they are just plain none.

So the whole “normalization” scenario, like its Camp David accords predecessor, is a sucker’s game. The genocidal Israeli swindlers are playing the Americans (and naïve Arabs including Palestinians) for gullible fools.

Indeed, it was MBZ and MBS’s foolishness in believing Kushner’s vague bromides about peace that caused the current war. Had Trump and Kushner not forced abnormalization down the throats of regional leaders—or had those leaders been wise enough to refuse the poisoned “medicine”—the regional Resistance would not have been driven to launch the October 7 2023 raid which the Israelis have used as an excuse for genocide.

Will the Saudi and Emirati leaders make the same mistake again? Will they fall for deceptive American promises uttered by Trump’s ultra-zionists?

Perhaps not. It may be that MBS and MBZ have finally learned their lesson. Indeed, there is some reason for optimism. Back in 2016, the Gulf Sheikhdoms were still falling hook-line-and-sinker for the zio-Americans’ divide-and-conquer strategy. But today they are stepping outside the western imperial orbit to mend fences with the Axis of Resistance. The BBC reported after Trump’s victory:

Brokered by China, Saudi Arabia and Iran have agreed to put aside their differences ending seven years of hostility characterised most visibly by the war in Yemen, where the Saudi air force bombed Iran-backed Houthi rebels. On Sunday (November 10) Saudi Arabia’s military chief flew to Tehran to meet his Iranian counterpart, with both countries now talking about deepening their co-operation on defence and security.

Obviously the BBC, representing the British establishment, is not especially enthusiastic about the emerging regional anti-zionist consensus. One observer who is optimistic is Alexander Dugin, the Russian philosopher and advocate of global multipolarity. In his November 21 al-Majalla article “Riyadh Summit could yet shape the dynamics of a multipolar world” Dugin writes:

What transpired at the unexpected Arab-Islamic Summit in Riyadh on 11 November 2024 could mark a historical turning point. If developments continue along this path, it may later be understood as the beginning of a pole formation in a multipolar world. At the summit, which placed the Palestinian cause front and centre, the presence of two long-standing foes—Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan—was telling. Not long ago it would have been unthinkable for these two men to appear in the same forum. Also there was Iranian First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref who met Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman after.

In the wake of the ongoing zionist genocide of Gaza and war crimes against the West Bank, Lebanon, and Syria, it has become obvious to everyone in West Asia that the zionists are not rational actors. Rather, they are millenarian-messianic maniacs—criminally insane gangsters who must be dissuaded, and finally disbanded, at gunpoint.

What this means is that the Axis of Resistance has won its argument with the appeasers. Today, everyone recognizes that the Resistance was right all along: The zionists and their American backers are non-agreement-capable, as the fruits of Camp David and abnormalization have conclusively demonstrated. Palestine will be liberated, and fever dreams of “Greater Israel” put to bed, not by negotiation, but by force majeure.

And it may not even take all that much force. Zionist settler colonialists, like their Euro-Algerian counterparts circa 1960 only more so, will flee like proverbial rats from a sinking ship as soon as their insecurity level becomes intolerable. Being spoiled cowards at heart, whose only military talent is for mass-murdering tens of thousands of women and children and raping helpless prisoners to death, the zionists are incapable of enduring even a fraction of the suffering they have heaped on their Palestinian and Lebanese victims. The minute the real prospect of such suffering looms, they will flee to greener pastures.

There is now a consensus in the region, and indeed in the whole Global South, that the zionists need to be defeated and sent home. New military technologies are making it ever-easier for even non-state actors to raise the level of insecurity in Occupied Palestine to levels that zionists—especially educated, economically productive ones—cannot tolerate.

So the bad news is that whatever approach MBS and MBZ take to the incoming Trump regime’s nonsensical deceptions, the outcome will be continued war. The good news is that the war will eventually be won, the zionists will go home, and (insha’Allah) a united Muslim Ummah will form a central pole of an emerging multipolar civilization.

Kingdom of Saudi ArabiaUAE

Muslims Limp From Christian Crusades to Sectarian Crusades, Lessons Lost

Mohamed Ousman

Pictorial depiction of the Crusaders' assault on Al Quds (Jerusalem)

Revisionist accounts of history attempt to whitewash crusader crimes against humanity by depicting them as having good relations with the Muslims.

The Crusaders will be remembered as European Christian barbarians who slaughtered thousands of innocent Muslims.

The latter were forced to launch jihad to overturn almost a century of humiliation and subjugation.

Notwithstanding the bloody Crusades, sectarian Sunnis and sectarian Shi‘is selectively read the Qurʾan, sunnah and history to vindicate their self-righteousness and saved sect perception.

They cherry-pick from the Qurʾan, sunnah and history whatever enables them to score sectarian points against each other.

In this mutually destructive and self-defeating process, invaluable lessons are lost by the average Muslims.

They are either ignorant of our common history or refuse to learn from the treachery and betrayals of power hungry rulers.

During our contemporary era Muslims, have made some spectacular gains as a result of the joint struggles and sacrifices of non-sectarian Sunnis and Shi‘is, notwithstanding the recent setbacks.

The sectarian spoilers from both sides, however, are out in full force to disrupt efforts meant to restore the togetherness of Muslims.

Of course, sectarian Sunnis and sectarian Shi‘is are funded and enabled by the zionist-imperialist-Wahhabi axis of evil to wreak havoc among the struggling and sacrificing Muslims.

There are Shi‘i sectarians and there are Sunni sectarians.

The difference between them is that the mature leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran does not bolster the toxic sectarian narrative, especially among Shi‘i sectarians. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the self-styled leaders from colonized Hejaz (mislabeled Saudi Arabia) who claim to represent Sunni Muslims.

These Saudi Bedouins spare no effort to enable Sunni sectarians and their sectarian narrative.

Regrettably, nowadays, Sunni sectarians seem to get a kick out of cherry picking and presenting information about the treachery and collaboration of the Fatimi “Shi‘i” dynasty with the Crusaders.

Their added emphasis is on the “Shi‘i” description rather than the Fatimi description. They use these descriptions in order to try to drive a perpetual wedge within the House of Islam.

Little is presented regarding the treachery and collaboration of the Ayyubi “Sunni” dynasty.

This article reviews the treachery of self-serving rulers whose quest for power drove them to disregard Islamic principles.

As information about the treachery of the Fatimi “Shi‘i” dynasty and its collaboration with the Crusaders is already widespread, the focus of this article will be on the treachery and collaboration of the Ayyubi “Sunni” dynasty.

It must be noted that this does not mean that Sunnis and Shi‘is are naturally treacherous.

At the popular level, Sunnis and Shi‘is are good-hearted Muslims, but some treacherous rulers may have hailed from their ranks who were not honorable.

Ibn Jubayr, known for his praise of the “Sunni” ruler, Salahuddin, and for disparaging the previous Fatimi “Shi‘i” dynasty, passed through Palestine in 1184CE and said that the Muslims and the Crusaders harmoniously inhabited countless agricultural villages where political and military alliances, commerce and the exchange of science and ideas were the norm.

Do the Sunni sectarians who selectively cite only the treachery and collaboration of the Fatimi “Shi‘i” dynasty have any comment about this?

Despite Muslims under the leadership of Salahuddin vanquishing the Crusaders, subsequent power hungry rulers from the Ayyubi “Sunni” dynasty would routinely promise Al Quds (Jerusalem), including Al Masjid Al Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock, to the Crusaders whenever internal hostilities among them intensified.

Sibt ibn al-Jawzi provides an account regarding Emperor Frederick II, who led the Sixth Crusade in 1228-1229CE.

In it he says that King Kamil, the last powerful ruler of the Ayyubi dynasty and nephew of Salahuddin, negotiated peace with the Crusaders.

According to these negotiations, he shared Al Quds with them.

Another account suggests that he gave Al Quds to the emperor after which revolts ensued in the lands of Islam.

It appears that in battling his own family for the throne of Egypt and Syria, this king opted for a diplomatic settlement with the Crusaders because he could not defend the Quds front at the expense of surviving on his throne.

On this occasion, the humiliation was such that King Kamil even voluntarily silenced the mu’adh’dhin during the emperor’s presence out of respect for the emperor and the adhan was not called in Al Quds (Jerusalem).

Why do the Sunni sectarians not cite this treachery and collaboration of the Ayyubi “Sunni” dynasty?

Two decades earlier, amidst preparations for the Fourth Crusade (1202-4CE), Salahuddin’s brother, King Adil, had his son-cum-Minister Kamil (the king to be), strike a deal with Venice, the conduit of the Crusaders.

Kamil offered the crusaders usage of Egyptian ports in exchange for them not attacking Egypt.

The Ayyubi “Sunni” dynasty struck a deal with the Crusaders in order to neutralize the Egyptian front so that they could secure their throne against threats from other Muslims.

In 1219, in order to quell a rebellion in Cairo, King Kamil offered Holy Land North to the Crusaders in exchange for a 30-year truce.

Al Quds could not be defended, because his brother, Mu‘azzam, had destroyed the city walls.

Notwithstanding the treachery of these rulers, Muslims eventually liberated Al Quds from the Crusaders but what is apparent is that these rulers disregarded Islamic sentiments, traditions, masjids and shrines.

For them, Al Quds was a bargaining chip and hence, by 1229CE, King Kamil signed a treaty in terms of which Al Quds, Bethlehem, Nazareth, etc. were transferred to the Crusaders in exchange for a 10-year truce.

The Muslims retained Al Masjid Al Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock.

This truce with the Crusaders enabled him to focus on regaining Syria from his nephew.

Once again, in 1239CE, as a result of the disagreement and hostility of Al-Salih Ismail Ayyubi, who ruled Damascus, with Al-Salih Ayyubi, who ascended the throne of Egypt after Kamil, the former allied with the Crusaders and promised them Al Quds!

Earlier, in 1187CE, before the treachery of the Ayyubi “Sunni” dynasty, Muslims had liberated Al Quds under the leadership of Salahuddin Ayyubi.

It is extremely important to recall that Salahuddin did not have a serious bad reputation among the Ithna Ashari Shi‘is.

In fact, Salahuddin’s harshest critics were Sunni historians such as Ibn Al-Athir and Al-Maqrizi.

The Shi‘i historian, Ibn Abi Tayy, praised Salahuddin.

He wasn’t the only Shi‘i of the time to do so.

He criticized Salahuddin’s master, Nur al-Din of the Zangi dynasty for his anti-Shi‘i sectarianism.

Nur al-Din had attempted to take over the Fatimi state after having initially supported the Fatimi minister, Shawar, to reclaim his ministerial position.

This attempted coup prompted Shawar to ally with the Crusaders against the Zangi dynasty.

In contrast to Ibn Abi Tayy, the Shi‘i scholar, Abu Turab of Baghdad, cursed Salahuddin for ending Fatimi rule in Egypt.

Despite having no Divine legitimacy, the tribal Abbasi monarchy in Baghdad was viewed as an Islamic central authority while the Fatimi dynasty in Egypt was viewed as a rogue state. Complicating the situation further was the latter’s creed and jurisprudential doctrine which were widely rejected.

Yet, Salahuddin Ayyubi dealt with the rulers of the Fatimi dynasty in a non-sectarian manner.

He was a unifier who knew how to prioritize under emergency conditions.

He was cognizant of the Crusaders approaching from the west and the Mongols approaching from the east and did not make their task easier by stirring sectarian divisions.

In fact, it was when the Shi‘i Fatimi dynasty sought help from Nur al-Din of the Sunni Zangi dynasty in Syria that Salahuddin became a minister in the Fatimi state.

He fought the Crusaders under the Fatimi banner notwithstanding differences with their creed and jurisprudential doctrine.

Even as a senior military leader, he remained loyal to the Fatimi dynasty.

When he became the king of Egypt he dealt with remnants of the Fatimi dynasty with wisdom and mercy.

Two historians, viz. Ibn Shaddad, in Al-Nawadir Al-Sultaniyya wa Al-Mahasin Al-Yusufiya and Abu Shama in Kitab Al-Rawdatayn fi Tarikh Al-Dawlatyn relate that when Nur al-Din Zangi ordered Salahuddin to publicly pray for the Abbasi rulers as a sign of allegiance to them and opposition to the Fatimi dynasty, Salahuddin apologized and refused.

He did not stir up sectarian divisions knowing that the Fatimi dynasty enjoyed popular support in Egypt.

When the Fatimi ruler passed away, he did not rejoice as sectarians do today.

Rather, he grieved over him, offered condolences and fulfilled the deceased ruler’s last testament.

However, under persistent pressure from Nur al-Din, he eventually carried out the order to publicly pray for the Abbasi rulers when the Fatimi ruler fell extremely ill—an act that he later came to regret.

When remnants of the Fatimi dynasty began an insurgency, attempting to assassinate Salahuddin and collaborating with the Crusaders, he dealt with them based on their actions, not their ideology or theology.

It is noteworthy to mention that among the insurgents were also fanatical Sunnis who were dissatisfied with Salahuddin’s wisdom, patience, gradualism and approach to unity.

Also noteworthy is the fact that Salahuddin did not dispense collective punishment.

At the end of the initial legal process, only eight insurgents were executed.

Few Muslims have matured to realize that Sunnis and Shi‘is constitute one Ummah that must face the enemies of Islam and the Muslims together.

Muslims urgently need to de-emphasize differences and accept Muslims from another background without ex-communicating them from the House of Islam or considering them a threat inside the House of Islam.

The unwillingness to mature have caused historical tensions to snow-ball to the extent that some Muslims sell-out Islam and Muslims if they are permitted to practice their “sectarian understanding of Islam” under zionist and imperialist regimes.

Sectarians are more loyal to zionist and imperialist regimes than a government that understands Islamic history differently from them.

They would forsake Islamic unity for the sake of a sectarian reading of history.

A regime under threat from a militia loyal to a Khalifa/Imam would become loyal to zionists and imperialists or would try to play off one against the other.

Similarly, an insurrection threatening a regime would pledge loyalty to zionists and imperialists or would try to play off one against the other.

Do the Qur’an and the Prophet feature into these expedient decisions?

This is an important question to address because even in a country like the United States—the great Satan, which supports Israel against the Palestinians and antagonizes the Islamic State in Iran—it is one of the safest places for Shi‘i sectarians to practice their sectarian understanding of Islam.

In it, they can spread Shi‘i sectarianism and prosper financially compared to Muslim countries like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, Morocco, etc. where they are threatened by the regimes because they understand Islamic history differently.

Yet, Islamic history is not a history of conflict between Sunnis and Shi‘is.

History shows that on occasion, the Crusaders were willing to enter into treaties with Muslims of any sect.

Or, they provided safe haven for Muslim dissidents who may have disliked the ruler of a neighboring Muslim state in order to advance their agenda of domination.

Not much has changed since.

The Pahlavi dynastic regime in Iran was “Shi‘i” as is the Aliyev dynastic regime in Azerbaijan.

They strategically allied themselves with the zionists and imperialists in order to survive on their thrones.

Iran formed part of the zionists’ periphery doctrine until the Islamic Revolution led by Imam Khomeini overthrew that dynastic regime.

Today, the numerous tin-pot Arabian dictatorial regimes are “Sunni”.

They too are in a strategic alliance with the zionists and imperialists so that they can survive on their thrones.

That has been the case from the days of the Arab Peace Initiative to Oslo to the Abraham Accords.

The history of subjugation from a millennium ago during the Crusades has become our contemporary predicament where-in the zionists and imperialists now support regimes and create movements which are used to destabilize or overthrow governments that resist their domination and hegemony.

This re-run of history highlights the need for Muslims to learn from the bitter lessons of history and improve in order to extricate ourselves from our current predicament of subjugation and humiliation.

Muslims can ill-afford a Sunni-Shi‘i schism fueled by illegitimate rulers who use a different interpretation of history to distract and divide Muslims from our common enemies.

And do as you are told by Allah and His Apostle; and do not [allow yourselves to] be at discord with one another, lest you lose heart and your moral strength desert you. And persevere: for, verily, Allah is with those who persevere in hardship (The Ascendant Qur’an, Surat Al Anfal, verse 46).

Palestinethe CrusadersAl Quds (Jerusalem)Salahuddin Ayyubi

Zionist Threats To Masjid al-Aqsa: Whose Responsibility Is It To Protect It?

Omar Ahmed

The zionist threats to Masjid al-Aqsa in occupied East Jerusalem are far from new, but the escalating aggression and frequency of incursions by fanatical Jewish squatters (otherwise called settlers) into the sacred compound have brought the situation to a dangerous tipping point.

For decades, Masjid al-Aqsa has remained a powerful symbol of resistance, representing not just a religious edifice but a core of Palestinian national identity and a pivotal site in the broader struggle against the Israeli occupation. In one of the most recent incidents, in October, around 1,400 illegal Israeli squatters stormed the Aqsa complex to celebrate the Jewish holiday of Sukkot.

This was followed days later when hundreds of illegal squatters, under police protection, invaded the site again. In turn, the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf and Affairs Council issued a warning that the occupation regime is enabling Jewish squatters to change the “status quo” at Al-Aqsa Mosque.

According to the Jerusalem Story website:

“The 19th-century Status Quo agreement regulates access to and administration of Jerusalem’s holy sites. Jordan’s Hashemite family has custodianship of all Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, including al-Haram al-Sharif compound, which is waqf property. Despite some violations after the 1967 War, the arrangements specified by the agreement have remained more or less intact.”

However, such organized violations of the sanctity of Islam’s third holiest site have been occurring since 2003, when the colonial occupation state started allowing illegal squatters into the compound on an almost daily basis with the exception of Fridays and Saturdays.

Three years prior, then-opposition leader Ariel Sharon made a provocative visit to the Aqsa Mosque with the approval of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and protected by about 2,000 Israeli soldiers and special forces, triggering the Second Intifada or the Aqsa Intifada as it was also known.

The zionist movement, since its inception, has seen control over Jerusalem as a non-negotiable part of its expansionist ambitions. While the 1967 war established Israeli control over East Jerusalem, the constant storming of Al-Aqsa by squatters, particularly members of the religious zionist movement, represents a more insidious attempt to alter the character of the city—both spiritually and demographically.

The incursions into Al-Aqsa, often accompanied by provocative rituals, are designed to challenge this longstanding status quo, wherein the site is reserved as an Islamic place of worship, supposedly under Jordanian custodianship. These incursions, emboldened by Israeli police protection, have steadily increased, transforming into a tool to test Palestinian resolve and provoke broader escalations.

The frequency of these storming events has not only intensified but is also spearheaded by officials within the occupation regime who subscribe to religious zionism such as Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir, who also took part in the October storming.

In August, Ben-Gvir said in an interview with Army Radio that “If I could do anything I wanted, I would put an Israeli flag on the site.” When pressed several times by a journalist if he would build a synagogue at the Aqsa site if it were up to him, Ben-Gvir replied: “Yes.”

These figures often support the agenda to Judaize Jerusalem, aiming to shift the identity of the city from an inclusive spiritual center to one that marginalizes the Palestinian presence and claims an exclusive Jewish narrative.

Such rhetoric and actions are perceived as direct threats to al-Aqsa’s sanctity and an existential affront to the city’s Arab and Muslim identity. This steady encroachment underpins the broader project to further undermine prospects of Palestinian statehood and sever any ties that the Palestinians and the wider Muslim world have to the Holy City.

It is for this reason that last year’s Al-Aqsa Flood resistance operation was launched as an answer to the repeated provocations and threats to mosque. This was not an isolated event but rather the culmination of years of pressure, growing anguish, and unanswered violations.

Moreover, it signified a breaking point for the Palestinian factions, especially Hamas, who framed their actions as a necessity to protect the sanctity of Al-Aqsa and Palestinian dignity.

According to one official from Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), the goal of the operation was “to prevent the targeting of Al-Aqsa Mosque, disparaging or insulting of Muslim religious rites, assault of our women, efforts to Judaize Al-Aqsa Mosque and normalize Israeli occupation of it, or divide it temporally and spatially.”

The operation which took the world by surprise was a direct response to the threats against Al-Aqsa, reinforcing the notion that continued desecration of this sacred site would come at a high cost for the occupation entity.

The ensuing genocidal war on Gaza, which saw relentless bombings and a brutal siege, and the parallel escalations in the West Bank and along the Lebanese border involving Hizbullah, underlined how central Al-Aqsa is to the wider Axis of Resistance.

For Hizbullah, for various Palestinian factions, and indeed for much of the Muslim world, Al-Aqsa is not merely a Palestinian concern—it is a collective red line. The opening of a support front demonstrated the interconnectedness of resistance movements, all united by a common cause: safeguarding Al-Aqsa from Judaization and asserting the rights of the oppressed against the occupying forces.

In the aftermath of October’s incursion at the site, Palestinian faction and Fatah offshoot, the Mujahideen Movement stated:

“The terrorist Ben Gvir’s attack today on Al-Aqsa Mosque is a crossing of all red lines and reveals the continuation of the Nazi entity’s regime with its Judaization plans that target Al-Aqsa Mosque, its entity and its Islamic identity.”

But where does this leave Jordan? As the official custodian of Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem, Amman bears an important role when it comes to Al-Aqsa’s protection. However, Jordan’s responses have increasingly come under fire for being complicit in defending the occupation state rather than genuinely safeguarding the mosque and worshippers.

Despite the Hashemite Kingdom’s repeated and empty condemnations of Israeli actions, its measures have been largely limited to diplomatic rebukes, constrained by its delicate peace treaty with Israel and its dependence on western, particularly US, aid.

This has led to growing criticism from its large, if not majority Palestinian population and the broader Muslim community, who see Jordan’s actions as insufficient and even hypocritical in the face of an existential threat to Al-Aqsa.

The lack of substantial action during the latest Israeli atrocities, coupled with its support for the occupation state amid Iran’s retaliatory strikes, has further tarnished Jordan’s already low reputation. The Hashemite Kingdom’s reluctance to take a firmer stand has led many to question whether it is truly committed to its custodianship of Al-Aqsa or more concerned with maintaining favorable relations with Israel and the west.

Beyond Jordan, the responsibility to protect Al-Aqsa falls on the entire Muslim world. Countries like Turkiye, Iran, and Qatar have voiced stronger stances in solidarity with the Palestinian cause, yet the practical measures to deter Israeli aggression remain limited.

Iran’s involvement, particularly through its ardent and substantial support of the Resistance Axis, has been seen as a more direct challenge to Israeli encroachments, contrasting sharply with Jordan’s passivity and Turkiye’s hypocrisy.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has also made declarations, but its influence and actions have not lived up to the urgency demanded by the escalating situation. That founding OIC member and custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, Saudi Arabia is leveraging normalize talks with Israel doesn’t help matters either.

The fragmentation and disunity within the Muslim world have, in many ways, allowed Israel to act with impunity. Without a unified, assertive front that moves beyond rhetoric, Al-Aqsa remains vulnerable to incremental zionist encroachments.

The centrality of Al-Aqsa to the resistance cannot be understated. Every escalation that begins with incursions into the sacred compound carries the risk of expanding into a full-scale regional war, as witnessed with unfolding events in neighboring Lebanon.

The fragmented response from the Muslim world has thus far been insufficient to deter Israeli actions. To truly protect Al-Aqsa, a unified, actionable stance is required—one that combines diplomatic, economic, and, if necessary, military measures to ensure that the sanctity of this holy site is preserved.

The price of inaction is clear: continued desecration, heightened conflict, and the erasure of Palestinian heritage from one of the world’s most sacred cities.

Al-Aqsa MasjidZionist Israel