Why Middle East needs a multipolar security order

By: Azhar Azam

US President Donald Trump's Gaza peace plan builds on the New York Declaration, a resolution presented jointly by Saudi Arabia and France last month at the United Nations General Assembly and adopted by 142 votes. Calling for inclusive efforts to end the war in Gaza, it demanded Hamas to release all hostages, surrender its rule in the enclave and “hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority.”

But Washington and Tel Aviv rejected it vehemently because the measure emphasized the implementation of a two-state solution immediately. In contrast, the peace plan unveiled by Trump and Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu centered on disarming Hamas and shelving the likelihood of Palestinian statehood for an indefinite period.

Hamas has given a partial nod to the peace plan, agreeing to release all hostages yet refusing to disarm until Tel Aviv’s full withdrawal from Gaza. However, Netanyahu’s forceful rejection of Palestinian statehood, history of reneging from ceasefires, genocidal ideology and far-right leadership further arouse concern that even if a deal is reached, it will briefly pause Israel's hostilities rather than promoting sustainable peace.

According to Axios, the version of peace plan agreed between Trump and Netanyahu differs significantly with the one presented to the Arab and Muslim leaders and shared with Hamas, enraging Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Türkiye.

The last-minute edits, especially linking Israel's troop withdrawal with Hamas disarmament, and the Times of Israel’s report revealed that some clauses were deliberately left ambiguous to protect Tel Aviv’s interests, denying the formation of a Palestinian state and retaining Israel’s control on occupied territories.

Statements from Qatar and Pakistan – Trump’s plan “requires clarification and negotiation” and the 20 points “made public are not ours” – amplify suspicions the initiative is carefully crafted to skew it overwhelmingly in Tel Aviv’s favor.

The underlying objective behind these revisions was to provoke Hamas' dismissal of Trump’s peace proposal – thereby enabling Netanyahu deflecting political backlash at home. Hamas, by expressing its willingness to resolve the crisis, undercut these attempts. If enacted in its current form, the plan would only halt, not cease, Israeli hostilities. In the long-run, it could expose vulnerable Palestinians to future Israel’s assaults.

Such an outcome would embolden Tel Aviv to entrench its dominance and threaten the sovereignty of other nations as illustrated by its attacks on other countries and unprecedented strikes on Hamas leadership in Qatar.

Netanyahu’s apology to Doha and Trump’s executive order, pledging to consider “any armed attack” against Qatar as a threat to America’s peace and security, is largely symbolic. The presidential directive bypasses the Senate, making it nonbinding for the future US administrations.

At face value, the initiative seems assuaging region-wide skepticism on US security guarantees. It also reflects unease in the White House over the Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement (SMDA) between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Although the Riyadh-Islamabad pact was in making for years, Israel’s aggression against Qatar and initial US tepid response accelerated its signing.

Over the last few years, the Gulf has seen the rise of "more pragmatic, less ideological" leadership. These Gen-Z leaders viewed Hamas, over its historical ties with Muslim Brotherhood, as a threat to their dynasty rule. While regional countries didn’t criticize the movement, fearing a public backlash – they drew closer to India and embraced Abraham Accords to secure strategic dividends from normalized ties with Israel.

But Tel Avis’ ceaseless violations of regional sovereignty have shifted the same pragmatism in Islamabad's favor. In response, they have been trying to diversify their security partnerships away from Washington. The SMDA signals this tectonic shift in the Middle East geopolitics.

America’s fragile-now-selective commitment to Gulf security urges regional nations not to solely rely on unilateral initiatives or assurances and pursue alternative, multipolar defense arrangements. Netanyahu’s pursuit of “Greater Israel” – a controversial term used in reference to areas including East Jerusalem, West Bank, Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights Israel captured in the 1967 war – gives them a blunt warning: after disarming Hamas, they will be the next.

With its veto powers at the United Nations Security Council and political and military influence in the Middle East, the US has granted Israel an unbounded authority to act with impunity.

And its stated position – to maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge and bolster its ability to “counter and defeat” all kinds of military threats from any state or coalition of states as well as ensure unrestrained supply of arms to eliminate Hamas – stipulate it to protect Israel no matter what consequence result from Tel Aviv’s expansionist goals.

The volatile regional security landscape demands the Arab and Islamic world to move beyond rhetorically condemning Israel’s actions and ambitions and begin institutionalizing defense cooperation into a comprehensive multipolar security partnership.

Such an inclusive regional security order, to which the SMDA could serve as an effective platform, won’t abandon security partnerships with America. This mechanism will aim to add an extra layer of defense, contributing to building robust regional security architecture that is capable of maintaining strategic balance and promoting durable peace in the Middle East.

*My article (unedited) appeared in Brussels Morming and Express Tribune

Trump’s Ukraine peace push is a dangerous delusion

By: Azhar Azam

President Donald Trump’s push to broker a peace deal between Kyiv and Moscow reflects less an instinct for mediation than an impulse to appease. He has acted as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s henchman – leaving Russia emboldened, Ukraine isolated, allies abandoned and international security at risk.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy discovered this harsh reality when he, earlier this year, sought Trump's support to deliver a strong response to Russia’s unprovoked invasion. Against all expectations, he received no assurances – just public humiliation.

Trump’s blunt tone and abrasive treatment of a partner under siege revealed that under his presidency, Washington’s foreign policy will be driven by self-interest, not commitment and values.

By making overtures to Moscow, Trump is tearing apart a coalition of 50 nations, his predecessor painstakingly stitched together to shore up Kyiv’s defense. He appears willing to surrender Ukraine’s sovereignty and undermine Europe’s security.

Trump’s placation of a revisionist leader has transcended all limits. He has placed the onus of ending the war on Ukraine, painting Russia as a victim. Not long ago an impassioned defender of democratic freedoms, human rights and transatlantic cohesion – America under new president has defected to an authoritarian adversary – branding Zelenskyy as a “dictator” and dismissing conflict as a European war.

Chasing personal glory and rapid-fire peace deals, he has talked of territorial swaps, nixed Ukraine’s Nato membership, refused security guarantees to Ukraine and pressured Zelenskyy to end the war on Putin’s terms – ceding Crimea to Moscow. Trump’s “deal-making” normalizes aggression and encourages Russia to demand recognition of “new territorial realities.”

This isn't diplomacy – it's capitulation. This doesn’t just reward aggression – it hails tyranny. Worse, this approach shakes the foundation of transatlantic security and casts serious doubts on US commitment to allies.

His action to trade away Ukraine's sovereignty for self-projection has broader implications for global security. It set a dangerous precedent for other powers to resort to use of force – emboldening Israel to flex its muscles beyond Gaza as exemplified by its military campaign in Qatar, a staunch US ally, to target Hamas top leadership.

Trump's abandonment of Ukraine will reinforce the global south's suspicions on US reliability as a security partner and guardian of the rules-based international order, hastening their embrace of a China-led global governance model – not out of ideological convergence but out of disillusionment with America’s negotiable commitments with partners.

To prevent this drift, Washington must reestablish its credibility. Clinging to an arrogant obsession of the world's lone-superpower won’t change the global south’s perception.

For America to change this view, it must treat existing allies as equals, build new partnerships – not alliances – with individual countries and demonstrate that it values its allies regardless of economic and military weight.

Even Europe is growing wary. The bloc’s 2025 Strategic Foresight Report underscores that security has become a “key vector” for all European policies, stressing “We are witnessing the erosion of the rules-based international order and fracturing of the global landscape.” Britain, Belgium, France and Portugal and several US allies have announced to recognize Palestine – apparently in a backlash against Trump’s protectionism and ambivalence toward European security.

Moscow, meanwhile, is exploiting Trump’s whimsical approach. Far from tempering its stance, it has hardened its conditions to end the war, demanding most of the territory it has seized and some of which it's yet to, accepting Zelenskyy only as a “de facto” head of a “regime” rather than as a leader of a sovereign state.

Putin continues to pin the blame of his invasion of Ukraine on the “(2014) coup” and Kyiv’s accession to Nato – a narrative echoed by some Western scholars but belied by Russia’s annexation of Ukrainian land.

More than a decade later, the West’s assessment has prevailed with Russia seizing almost 20% of Ukraine. And despite Trump’s assurance to deny Nato membership to Ukraine, Putin is seeking more – let alone returning the occupied territory. His dizzying pace and bountiful concessions to Moscow have shocked allies and invited escalation.

If this is the peace deal, he boasted on his campaign trail to clinch in 24 hours, Ukraine and Europe are rightly alarmed. Surrender, dressed up as statesmanship, won’t bring peace – it will weaken Ukraine, fracture transatlantic bonds and strengthen authoritarian rivals.

Trump must reverse course. To reestablish US credibility and sustain its global leadership, he must deter aggression, reaffirm Washington’s commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and allies including those in the global south and strengthen – not undercut – the rules-based international order.

Inaction is not an option. Failure to act risks dragging the world back to the prewar era – only this time, not with bayonets, but with far deadlier weapons and nuclear stockpiles – a catastrophe for both America and the rest.

*My article (unedited) that first appeared in Brussels News and Express Tribune with the title "Need to reverse course reestablish US credibility"