U.S. Retreat Campaign to Downplay Trump’s Statements and Frame Them as Mere Ideas /  Setback for Salam’s Natural Government Formation, Awaiting the Timing and Form of a Forced Birth

 February 07, 2025

The political editor wrote

A misstep by President Donald Trump provided a morale-boosting and media victory for Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, shielding it from the risk of collapse. However, it also provoked strong Arab and international reactions, forcing a broad U.S. disavowal. In response, the White House and State Department launched a public relations campaign to soften the impact, offering justifications that contradict Trump’s own words. U.S. officials claimed that Trump’s plan does not strip Gaza’s rightful owners of their land, yet Trump explicitly spoke of long-term American ownership. While they argued that displacement would be temporary, Trump himself openly questioned why Gaza’s residents should ever return after its transformation into a global hub – a “Middle Eastern Riviera.” Similar narratives emerged from within the occupying entity, framing it as “encouraging voluntary migration” rather than forced displacement. However, global and Arab opposition intensified, raising pressing questions about how Arab states will respond now that Trump has effectively buried the two-state solution, dismissed the prospect of a Palestinian state, and called for normalisation with the occupying entity on this basis. Saudi Arabia, alongside Jordan and Egypt, reaffirmed its commitment to a Palestinian state and rejected all forms of displacement, annexation, and settlement expansion.

In Lebanon, Prime Minister-designate Nawaf Salam’s misstep coincided with the arrival of Morgan Ortagus, successor to Amos Hochstein and deputy U.S. envoy to the region, Steve Witkoff. Reuters reported that she was set to deliver a firm message to Lebanese leaders: The U.S. will not tolerate unchecked Hezbollah influence in the new government’s formation. A senior U.S. official, a Western diplomat, and regional government sources indicated that “her message would include a warning that Lebanon faces deeper isolation and economic ruin unless it forms a government committed to reforms, anti-corruption efforts, and curbing Hezbollah’s power”. A senior American official told Reuters: “Washington does not choose individual cabinet members, but it insists on ensuring Hezbollah has no role in the new government”. He further claimed that “Hezbollah has been defeated, and the government must reflect this new reality”.

Salam’s misstep was reflected in his handling of the nomination of the agreed-upon fifth Shiite minister in a provocative manner, aimed at portraying Hezbollah and Amal as having been dealt a defeat – contrary to prior agreements on the nomination process. The result was a setback in the natural formation of the government, raising questions about the timing and nature of its inevitable forced formation. With Salam still unwilling to withdraw from the scene, the remaining options are limited: returning to prior understandings, forming a government without Hezbollah and Amal – which the president may refuse to sign off on, the Democratic Gathering may decline to join, and Parliament may struggle to approve – or remaining in a state of deadlock for weeks or even months, marking the worst possible start for the new presidency.

A third misstep unfolded on the eastern border when Lebanese civilians came under fire from Syrian territory, attacked by militants affiliated with Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham. It remains unclear whether this was a sanctioned decision by the group or a localised act of rogue fighters. The situation in the Hermel region and its adjacent Syrian areas escalated into hours-long clashes, resulting in casualties and the capture of several individuals on both sides. By nightfall, the confrontation concluded with a prisoner exchange and the stabilisation of the ceasefire.