LONDON - The future direction of West Asia remains uncertain, but one fundamental principle holds: power determines survival. Those who lack strength—whoever they may be—will not endure, including the Israeli occupation. Meanwhile, the strong will consolidate their position.

This is the key understanding: power provides the opportunity for consolidation.  

Any actor that disregards Trump and proves that the region does not belong to America will assert itself, prompting a Trumpian response of withdrawal. Trump does not see the region as strategically vital. He promotes the worst-case solutions to achieve maximum compromises, but when faced with resistance, he retreats.  

The primary goal behind attacking Yemen was to send a message to Iran. However, Yemen’s response will reinforce a critical lesson: force alone will not break its resolve. The same applies to Iran—Trump’s threats during negotiations have not forced it to yield. Even when Trump ordered the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani, he pleaded with Iran not to retaliate. Now, his rhetoric toward Iran remains hollow.  

If the Israeli occupation entity were to strike Iran—a possibility—the Iranian response would be swift, decisive, and overwhelming, one that Israeli settlers could not tolerate. Even with the entity, a Trump reversal is not unthinkable. Trump has been challenging the very internal U.S. institutions, let alone the entity that is single issue.

In undoing the work of the American deep state, Trump may seek to reclaim the Syrian territories handed to Erdogan, branding HTS as “terrorists” to justify Kurdish advances under American backing.  

Regarding NATO and Europe, Trump aligns more with Putin than with European leaders. He views NATO not as a protector of America but as an American burden for Europe's benefit. The reality is that the U.S. deep state uses NATO to implement its strategies through the strategic alliances with Europe. A demand for European states to contribute 5% of their GDP to NATO would heavily strain their economies.  

Regionally, America is attempting to achieve through politics what it failed to accomplish through war. The discourse on forcibly displacing Gazans has faded, as has talk of exiling resistance leaders. Now, the U.S. is rejecting Egyptian proposals as "insufficient." This marks a shift from its earlier position when displacement was on the table. Trump operates by proposing extreme scenarios to extract maximum concessions.  

In Lebanon, negotiations involve the removal of Israeli presence from five points in exchange for normalization with Israel, a long-term American objective following Saudi normalization. If Lebanon resists, the U.S. may push Syrian-based militants into Lebanon as leverage.  

Ultimately, all American solutions are subject to change. Trump appears to believe that with the Gaza war halted, Arab states should step in as temporary rulers, paving the way for Saudi normalization. Yet, these are distant ambitions and unrealistic proposals—the region has endured far worse.  

Just as Canada will not become America’s 51st state, Greenland will not join the U.S., and Panama would require military invasion to be absorbed, Trump's grand visions remain implausible. Trump today is no different from his first term—except that he is now more confident. He perceives himself as a leader capable of enacting major changes. However, his greatest battle is not abroad but within America itself.  

While the regional situation remains complex, what is required is steadfastness and consolidation of power.