Perspectives and insights from writers in the Arab media
In our latest newsletter,we focus on Arab writers addressing three major issues confronting the Middle East:
- The realization and acknowledgement that any serious pursuit to resuscitate Lebanon politically and economically requires uprooting the “malignant tumor” of corruption
- Iran’s dilemma as it faces down the dangers of whether to talk or not to talk to the new US administration
- The impact of Zelensky’s tempestuous meeting with Trump might have on the Middle East
While to outside observers, these issues may be little more of than of academic or intellectual interest, however to the countries affected, the impacts could prove existential.
David E. Kaplan
Editor Lay of the Land
(*Articles translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)
CORRUPTION,CORRUPTION,CORRUPTION
Lebanon is not bankrupt but a plundered state
By Jean Feghali
Nidaa Al-Watan, Lebanon, Feb. 21
There is a malignant tumor that transcends eras, decades, and even centuries. Its diagnosis is not difficult. It is called corruption. Lebanon has been plagued by it since the days of the Ottoman Empire, through the French mandate, and into the era of independence. It festered during the Civil War, endured through the post-war period, and continued even with the advent of peace. To this day, it continues to erode the fabric of the Lebanese state.
President General Joseph Aoun recently stated:
“My main concern is to combat corruption that has eaten away at state administrations and has become a culture, and this corruption can only be stopped through accountability. Lebanon is not bankrupt but rather a plundered state ruled by people who have mismanaged its resources. Things will not be put right except by combating corruption and the corrupt.”
There are several key points to address here: corruption has become a culture in Lebanon; it can only be stopped through accountability, and Lebanon is a looted country governed by those who have squandered its resources. These three observations form the foundation of a roadmap for combating corruption – one that is not merely aimed at combating corruption for its own sake but with the ultimate goal of recovering the stolen funds, as the president emphasizes: “Lebanon is looted, not bankrupt.”
This road map requires a clear mechanism, and it is not beyond reach. The first step is identifying where the “looted money” went – specifically, how debts were paid off with checks and who the key beneficiaries are, particularly the larger figures involved. This is the latest innovation in corruption: allowing the major beneficiaries who took out loans to pay them off with checks at the lowest possible rates, with depositors’ funds at stake. It would be enough to file a lawsuit against these individuals, forcing the disclosure of their accounts, and once the recovery process begins, the financial gap would begin to narrow.
The second crucial issue is tax evasion. Today, the situation is more manageable than it once was, but it requires a decisive political will and a commitment to execution. For these matters to reach a resolution, they must be handed to an impartial judiciary – one that is not intimidated by the powerful and does not prey on the weak.
Perhaps the most accurate assessment of the judicial system was made by President Aoun, who, during a meeting with the Press Club, offered a candid observation:
“There is no judiciary in Lebanon.”
This stark truth – acknowledged by virtually everyone in Lebanon – is the starting point for any serious effort to combat corruption.
In a country where the corrupt do not fear its judiciary, corruption will continue unchecked. Only when the judiciary operates with integrity, free from intimidation or political influence, will Lebanon begin to see meaningful progress in fighting the pervasive corruption that continues to plague it.
– Jean Feghali
IRAN:TO TALK OR NOT TALK…THAT IS THE QUESTION
By Amir Taheri
Asharq Al-Awsat, London, Feb. 21
With the Trump administration sending mixed signals about its intentions toward Iran, the country’s leadership is once again divided over how to respond.
One faction is painting a grim picture in which the US provides Israel with enough support to deliver a crushing blow to Iran, completing the defeats already inflicted on Tehran’s allies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. These defeats, the faction argues, would inspire opponents of the regime, both within and outside the country, to take to the streets and seize power, while the IRGC, suffering from low morale, would resort to what it did in Syria – fleeing under the economic crisis’s shadow to protect itself.
This faction contends that the current economic crisis has drained the will and energy of the regime’s dwindling support base, making regime change a real possibility for the first time.
So, how can such a perilous situation be navigated? Senior figures in this faction, including President Masoud Pezeshkian, are proposing to open talks aimed at preventing war and allowing for a cooling of tensions. But who should they talk to? Talking to the US is supposedly off-limits, according to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who cites a fatwa issued by the regime’s founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, as well as a law passed by the Islamic Majlis, Iran’s parliament, which enforces the ban.
The answer: the European trio of France, Germany, and Great Britain, which just so happens to have strained relations with Washington at the moment. The theory is that the three countries would welcome a diplomatic breakthrough to restore some of the prestige they lost after President Donald Trump excluded them from his Ukraine peace initiative and his plans for the future of Gaza.
But what could be discussed without having to make concessions that would lead to a massive loss of face? The proposed “talks” would involve Iran offering to freeze its nuclear program for two to three years, after which it would decide its next steps. Tehran is currently investing vast resources in a program that lacks a clear and justifiable civilian or military purpose.
In return, the EU trio would use the mechanism provided by UN Security Council Resolution 3221 to block any military action against Iran. That resolution expires in October, opening the door to unintended consequences. Reaching an agreement with the Europeans would help ease pressure on Iran, inject some life into its moribund economy, and help prevent a widespread popular uprising.
Those promoting this analysis assume that the US and Israel will simply stand by and watch as Iran recovers from the brink. This analysis is countered by the faction loyal to the Supreme Leader, who insists that any appearance of weakness will accelerate the process of regime change. His advice is to stand firm and prepare for war.
The first step, according to this faction, is to build a war fund. This is achieved by reducing the supply of foreign currency in the market, allowing the national currency to depreciate further. The Iranian rial, which was worth 650,000 to the dollar, now needs to fall to 900,000 to the dollar. This was a trick used by the Allies when they invaded and occupied Iran during World War II. Because their expenses in Iran were in local currency, they were forced to devalue the rial by 50%.
Now, the Iranian regime is using this same tactic to increase the state’s purchasing power while reducing that of Iranian families, including military personnel and civil servants. To partially compensate, key individuals needed for the war effort are being given exceptional bonuses. The Supreme Leader, who controls the forces of law and order, has placed them on partial alert to preempt any potential rebellion. This is accompanied by a widespread crackdown on potential opponents, particularly in Tehran, where reports of arbitrary arrests have surfaced.
(Photo: NurPhoto | Morteza Nikoubazl)
©
All of this suggests that the head of the Iranian regime is not willing to accept another deal with America in order to distance himself voluntarily from Trump’s four-year term – a game that has led seven consecutive American presidents to a dead end and allowed the Islamic Republic to approach its golden jubilee.
Today, the question of whether to talk or not to talk is not just a matter for rival factions in Tehran but also for those forces that – rightly or wrongly – have concluded that there can be no regional peace and stability without persuading or forcing what former French president François Mitterrand called “the great troublemaker” to change or be changed.
– Amir Taheri
ZELENSKY’S WHITE HOUSE ‘TRAP’ SENDS DANGEROUS WORLD MESSAGE
By Eyad Abu Shakra
Asharq Al-Awsat, London, March 2
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s recent controversial meeting at the White House has generated a plethora of images and quotes, not to mention conspiracy theories. This encounter sent a resounding message to the world, offering a stark lesson for those still bound by outdated perceptions of US President Donald Trump’s thinking, his value system, his understanding of political mechanisms, his definitions of enemies and allies, and his respect for institutions, traditions, and historical relationships.
What the cameras and microphones captured seemed more akin to a “trap” laid by the Trump administration for the Ukrainian leader than a sincere political dialogue between allies, irrespective of their size. Although Zelensky probably anticipated that today’s Washington is not the same as yesterday’s, I doubt he expected to face a firing squad as he did in reality.
It is well documented that most American commitments to Ukraine were solidified during the Democratic administrations since 2014, including the terms of Barack Obama (2009-2017) and Joe Biden (2021-2025), encompassing Trump’s initial term (2017-2021).
What has been confirmed, whether during Trump’s years in office, through his campaign slogans, or his media statements, is that his mold is not only distinct from his Democratic predecessors but also from a significant portion of American presidents and leaders post-World War II in 1945.
One might argue that Trump possesses an independent mind that enables him to think outside the box. Others might assert that times have changed, along with the concepts and political dangers, necessitating a new approach that liberates from the constraints of inherited alliances and considerations that have traditionally restricted presidential actions and limited maneuverability.
This reality has even recently reflected the coexistence of two “schools” of conservative thought that have increasingly influenced the Republican Party, at least since the early 20th century. The party has historically housed right-wing and center-right currents, as well as centrist and progressive elements.
A retrospective glance at a few notable figures from the 20th and 21st centuries within the party’s ranks reveals hardline conservative right-wingers like senators Robert Taft and Joseph McCarthy, presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, governor and president Ronald Reagan, and then governor and president George W. Bush.
They rose to prominence in the Republican and American political arena before the Trump era, influenced by extremist phenomena such as McCarthyism, the clash with the East, and the moral majority representing evangelical Christianity, followed by neoconservatives, a coalition of the Christian religious right, the Jewish lobby, and the arms lobby.
Alongside these were the realist and center-right currents, exemplified by figures like President Dwight Eisenhower, presidents Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush, and political leaders like Thomas Dewey, Robert Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. Prominent liberal and progressive centrists historically included president Theodore Roosevelt (considered leftist by today’s standards), and statesmen like vice president Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javits, Charles Percy, John Chafee (former secretary of the Navy), and James Jeffords.
The pluralism once evident within the Republican Party seems absent in Donald Trump’s second term. Indeed, the previously mentioned extremist elements, despite their fervor, appeared more adherent to democratic foundations, institutions, and traditions, guided by the principle of separation of powers and more accepting of coexistence with opposing views.
Despite their intensity, these movements were less prone to “deification” compared to the MAGA phenomenon, which we’re seeing not only with the populist political base of President Trump. The MAGA movement, with Trump at its helm, disregards the separation of powers, the peaceful transition of power, and the independence of the judiciary, and refuses to acknowledge any election outcome unfavorable to its candidate. To achieve its goals, it did not hesitate to storm the Capitol building in Washington – the sacrosanct symbol of American democratic legitimacy.
Domestically, what remains of the New Deal, initiated in the 1930s following the Great Depression to provide a safety net for the American citizen, is currently being dismantled in cooperation with unelected billionaires. On the international front, all traditional prohibitions have been lifted; the erstwhile enemy has become a friend, the ally an irritating economic rival; and the territories of “neighbors” have turned into alluring, loose spaces open for annexation, occupation, and enforced acquisition, or regions from which undesirable inhabitants must be isolated behind walls of separation.
The entire political culture Washington inherited from the Cold War era has collapsed, with the notable exception of unwavering alignment with the ambitions of the Israeli far-right settler movement.
The distressing and profoundly detrimental signal sent by Washington, under Donald Trump, to the world, through the demeaning treatment of President Zelensky, signals that there is no longer peace of mind for Washington’s allies in the Far East and Western Europe, no vision for a stable and viable Middle East, no South Asia safe from nuclear calamities, and no South America free from the emergence of reckless populist regimes that fail to learn or be deterred.
– Eyad Abu Shakra
While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves. LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).
