The United States Dilemma

Arabian Sea - Exclusive

Report by: Waleed Al-Anani Is the escalating conflict between U.S. President Donald Trump and industrial tycoon Elon Musk real and reflective of a deep disagreement between them? Or is it a farce intended to draw attention to each of them, away from what constitutes fundamental weaknesses in their careers? To seek an answer to this question, we must recall some important facts, the first of which is that the past two or three weeks have witnessed many American decisions that are contrary to some Arab and international parties. Among these decisions is the imposition of sanctions on four judges of the International Criminal Court, which Europe rushed to refute, welcoming the court and its independence. Secondly, Trump has announced further sanctions on some Iranian institutions and figures, due to his frustration with Iran's failure to comply with his demand to completely halt uranium enrichment, a matter that Iran rejects, from Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to any media spokesperson in Tehran. Prior to the announcement of these sanctions, news leaked that the U.S. State Department, managed by presidential hopeful and strong supporter of Israel, Marco Antonio Rubio, had dismissed two employees loyal to the Israeli Prime Minister, as an expression of President Trump's anger at Netanyahu, who is disregarding all American demands. There is something inconsistent in all this news. Is the news of disagreements between the American and Israeli administrations part of a conflict of interest between them? Or is it part of a political game in which they anticipate decisions that primarily serve Israel's interests? The evidence, at least, suggests that the goals and foundations upon which each administration bases its decisions may contradict each other. But is this enough to create a rift or chasm of discord and disagreement between them? I don't think so. But should the Zionist movement in the world be satisfied with President Trump's administration and its behavior? I believe that the Zionist depth, with its strategic interests and control over its keys, may see some threat in the continuation of President Donald Trump and the school he represents in American society. Most of those who stand behind Trump, support him, and support his orientations are from the middle class of white technical workers, small business owners, employees, and others. These people, especially the white ones, enjoyed jobs that provided them with enough income to educate their children in universities, buy a house in the suburbs, go out, even once a week, for a meal outside the home, and pay installments on the car, house, insurance, electricity, water, and gas. However, the stagnation of wages at a time when the rates of price increases were reasonable led to a decline in the purchasing power of their income, and they began to see in the new immigrants people who are getting rich, buying houses and luxury cars, and sending their children to the best private universities, so the question had to arise: Where are we going, we whites who fought to build and prosper the economy? Strangely, this trend among whites found in many of the second or third generation immigrants a haven to strengthen their American identity, such as the children of immigrants from Cuba and other countries, and from Asian countries such as India and from African countries, but in smaller numbers. These immigrants, who have "normal behavior" and are not criminals, mafia members, drug smugglers, or members of criminal gangs, have a desire to separate themselves from the definition of "illegal immigrants," and therefore, we see them supporting Trump and standing behind him. This phenomenon exists in many countries, but it has always been an internal American issue. While conservatives (who do not want immigration or are strict about it) are fighting with liberals (the Democratic Party) who sympathize with new immigrants, the dynamics of society make many immigrants, especially from the second and third generations, shift from sympathizing with the ideas of the Democrats to the ideas of the Republicans. It seemed that some of the middle class thought that their chances of ruling began to diminish when the number of people of "brown and its shades" increased. U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama won the presidency twice in a row, not just once. But they found in Trump their lost object and their hero, and when Trump's style clashed with the style of conservatives from the Republican Party, it seemed as if Trump had entered the 2016 elections as the president of a third party, but the Republicans quickly realized the matter, stood with him, and won him the presidential elections that year. Now, billionaire Elon Musk came out to us last Friday, or on the day of Eid al-Adha, corresponding to the sixth of June, to tell us that 80% of the middle class wants a new party, and that he, Elon Musk, who was born in South Africa during the days when it was stigmatized by apartheid (racial discrimination), wants to create this party. So the man has not abandoned the idea of Plutocracy, or the rule of the wealthy, but he wants to use the middle class as Donald Trump himself did. Will Elon Musk succeed in his endeavor? He is much richer than Donald Trump. Therefore, President Trump also threatened last Friday to boycott the federal government for all of Musk's companies, from Tesla to space companies, to electronic communication and artificial intelligence companies. The reason is that Musk, with his abundant money, is able to build an organization to support his policies at the expense of the Republican Party in the upcoming midterm elections, which will take place in November of next year, 2026. If Trump loses the majority in the Senate and House of Representatives, his ability to pass any law will diminish and the Republican Party's chances of achieving electoral results will decline. The economic evidence we see so far indicates that fears of a decline in the American economy and an increase in indebtedness and the trade deficit have become more realistic than before. Thus, the conflict of the wealthy with presidents in the history of the United States happens often, and in this context, I recall two strong examples: The first occurred between U.S. President Andrew Jackson, who entered into a fierce battle in the first half of the nineteenth century against the director of the U.S. Bank, the lawyer Nicholas Biddle. The second occurred in the 1990s, when the American millionaire from Texas (Ross Perot) nominated himself as the head of a third party and received a larger than expected percentage of the popular vote. Nicholas Biddle wanted to renew the license of the U.S. Bank licensed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which controlled the issuance of the dollar and controlled interest rates. But the candidate for the second time for the Republican presidency, Andrew Jackson, did not like banks and opposed the idea of renewing the bank's license. The 1836 election battle turned into a fierce battle between Jackson and Biddle. When Jackson won the presidency, he vetoed the renewal of the bank's license. As for Ross Perot, who nominated himself for the presidential elections in 1992, he did not seek to establish a party organization to support him, but ran as a third candidate against the new Democratic candidate and the dark horse of the elections, Bill Clinton, and the Republican president who was re-nominated, George Bush Sr., who lost the elections to Clinton. Who will stand behind Musk if he seeks to create a party in which he is the maker of presidents, because he cannot, under the American constitution, nominate himself for the presidency because of his birth outside the United States? Can he gather forces around him to amend the constitution, which stipulates in paragraph (5) of the first section of Article II the conditions of who can nominate himself for the presidency, which is that he must have obtained citizenship by virtue of his birth in the United States, that he has completed his thirty-fifth year, and that he has spent a period of residence of no less than 14 years inside the United States? Of course, the last two conditions apply to Elon Musk. As for the condition of birth and nationality, it does not apply to him, unless it is amended in the constitution. But the matter is not easy at all. It is inferred from the history of those who sought to break away from the two-party system that they failed in this endeavor, and this may be the fate of Elon Musk, but Musk's impact on the Republican Party's chances of winning cannot be underestimated if the policies of the current administration fail to achieve the achievements it promised, which do not seem to be achieved convincingly so far. If Musk succeeds in gaining Zionist support, things may get out of hand during the next year and a half, and President Trump will be a lame duck, indicating that he will only serve as president for the remainder of his current term, during the second half of which he will be paralyzed in administration towards the American Congress. The United States reminds us of the period it went through before the Civil War that began in 1861 and ended in 1863, which was mainly motivated by conflicting economic interests between industrialists, on the one hand, and farmers, on the other. The industrialists want to impose tariffs, and the farmers want to open markets, and here the battle is renewing itself after more than 160 years, but it is between the industrialists, on the one hand, and traders of electronic and advanced technological services, on the other.