Trump… Can Arrogance Be Brought to Account?

Ambassador Jamal Mohammed Ibrahim

(Translated from Al-Araby Al-Jadeed – 23 April 2026)

(1)

Several observations are difficult to miss for anyone following the repercussions of the American–Israeli aggression against Iran, and the subsequent escalation and widening of military confrontations, which led to unjustified attacks on certain Gulf states. The escalation did not stop there, as Israeli assaults continued, extending from the Gaza Strip to Lebanon.

Perhaps the first notable observation is the complete absence of any role for the United Nations, despite its core mandate under the 1945 Charter to maintain international peace and security. The American president, who allied with Israel in the attack on Iran, deliberately disregarded international principles and conventions. He further entrenched his withdrawal from various UN-affiliated bodies, agencies, and specialised institutions. Not content with that, he went further in sidelining the UN and the United Nations Security Council—despite his country holding veto power within it—and instead proposed an alternative body under his own leadership, calling it the “Peace Council.” This was a bold fabrication, as his actions continued to violate the sovereignty and independence of numerous states, while fuelling conflicts across regions.

(2)

The second observation concerns the American president’s declared intention—since the first days of his presidency—that his programme would focus on restoring “American greatness.” In his view, this greatness had been squandered by his Democratic predecessors. To achieve this goal, he adopted an aggressive, bullying foreign policy marked by explicit disregard for state sovereignty and deliberate neglect of international norms.

This approach escalated to unprecedented levels, including the arrest of a sitting head of state from his bedroom in the capital of his own country, as reportedly occurred in Venezuela. Prior to that, he issued threats to seize Greenland, culminating in the joint American–Israeli attack on Iran and subsequent strikes on Gulf states. The United States thus bypassed diplomacy in favour of brute force, justified by fragile political disagreements. It became clear—based on the president’s own statements—that the objective was regime change in Iran, with underlying ambitions that could extend to reshaping the entire Middle East in line with Israeli strategic visions.

(3)

Yet the war did not unfold as the aggressors had anticipated. The United States shifted towards engagement with a mediation initiative hosted in Islamabad, leading to serious negotiations and a short-lived ceasefire. Notably, negotiations themselves have evolved: no longer confined to traditional face-to-face meetings in closed rooms, they have increasingly taken on digital and media-driven forms, transcending physical space.

Trump’s wars and decisions sparked strong opposition across American society, with resistance even emerging within legislative institutions. New complications arose, including the possibility that US–Iran negotiations might expand into additional issues, such as imposing a ceasefire on Israel’s actions in Lebanon—further complicating the process.

(4)

A second related issue concerns the contradictory statements made before negotiations. Each side portrayed itself as the victor, as though the only real loser in the war was the international community as a whole. Following the brief negotiations in Pakistan, the American president issued inflammatory remarks—reportedly influenced by his advisers—while Iranian statements simultaneously contradicted them.

From the Iranian side, further complexity emerged due to ambiguity in official communication. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (Pasdaran) often speaks more forcefully than political leaders, and its voice tends to carry greater credibility. The negotiation arena thus shifted into a parallel media battlefield, where language itself became a contested space. Statements conveyed in Persian may carry meanings that differ—or even invert—when interpreted in English by American audiences. Language here is not merely expression; it reflects mindset and political signalling.
(5)

The third observation concerns the domestic American context. It has become increasingly clear that President Donald Trump’s popularity has declined after one year in office, due to what critics describe as misguided domestic and foreign policies. This decline could put pressure on his administration, particularly as the Democratic Party prepares for a fierce contest ahead of the midterm elections in November.

Trump’s approval rating has reportedly fallen to around 30%, while Democrats have launched a vigorous campaign against his administration. They have criticised policies such as deploying armed forces to pursue migrants and naturalised citizens—measures opposed by several US states and seen by some as a return to discriminatory practices abandoned since the mid-20th century.

His support for Israel’s war in Gaza, actions in Venezuela, and participation in the war against Iran have all triggered strong opposition movements within the United States, including resistance from legislative bodies.
(6)

The international community briefly breathed a sigh of relief when negotiations led to a two-week ceasefire in the American–Israeli aggression. The United Nations Secretary-General welcomed the move—but within hours, his statement seemed to sink into irrelevance. Conflicting Iranian positions—particularly regarding the Strait of Hormuz—highlighted internal divisions between political leaders and the Revolutionary Guard, exposing instability in decision-making.

Thus, the international community remains mired in failure—unable both to condemn a war initiated by an overbearing American leadership and to halt it through effective collective action. Calls are now emerging for a return to the foundational principles of international law and multilateralism—principles undermined by a president driven by hubris.

Yet there are signs of a potential awakening within American legislative institutions. This overreach may eventually face correction—raising the question posed at the outset: can arrogance, in the end, be brought to account?

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=13215