jordan pulse -

Nidal Al-Majali

When it comes to international aid, the local, Arab, and even global communities—politicians, analysts, writers, and individuals, including myself—have rushed to criticise a decision made in the early days of a foreign president’s term. This president secured an electoral victory so overwhelming it could be likened to a political tsunami, solidifying his control over every branch of his government. His policies faced no internal opposition, as his voters saw him as serving their best interests and that of their powerful nation. We, however, were never his electorate. Our only recourse is to voice our frustration over his decisions and wait for his term to end, hoping for a return to diplomatic normalcy.

No allies or friends of his country have been spared from his extreme policies and bold declarations. Even nations sharing borders and political ties with him have suffered due to his erratic decision-making, which many view as reckless. Tariffs, taxes, border redrawing, island annexations, and violations of sovereign policies—all have been upended by a president whose main agenda is investment, whose reach extends even to his personal golf course, and whose closest ally is an extremist occupier who shares his ideology and approach to governance.

In recent days, we have fervently condemned the actions of this foreign president—despite not electing him—and rightfully so. Our response has even escalated to discussions of countermeasures. An elderly woman in a remote village, after taking a puff of her shisha, remarked, “Trump has no right!” Meanwhile, a politician tightening his tie declared, “We will respond with decisive diplomacy.” A writer, biting down on his Cuban cigar, called for a mass conference.

Yet, in all this uproar, we have overlooked the pressing need to hold accountable those tasked—by royal decree—with strengthening our economic and social resilience. Instead of constantly reacting to international decisions, why have our own policies remained subject to external influence? If we accept the notion that global rules dictate our economic path, then why are our policies always shaped to fit external demands, except when it comes to the minimum wage—where we alone decide to keep it at its lowest?

In dealing with a global superpower with whom we have deep political, economic, and military ties, reactionary responses and historical anecdotes will not serve us. Instead, we urgently need to:

1. Maintain a unified national stance behind the leadership’s decisions.


2. Secure the support of allies within the foreign president’s own political environment, as their words will carry more weight with him than any analysis we publish.


3. Adapt to global shifts and diversify our international partnerships instead of relying on a single strategic direction.


4. Boldly reclaim control over national revenue sources that were privatized or renewed prematurely due to personal deals or recommendations.


5. Focus on real, sustainable projects instead of merely posing for photos during contract signings without actual follow-through.


6. Demand accountability from our governments regarding development projects in agriculture, industry, mining, and logistics—sectors that form the backbone of national stability and strength.



Stability begins from within. The chaos surrounding us benefits only those outside our borders, increasing our burdens and security demands. As for relying on Arab support, history has shown that many prioritise their interests with the U.S. over any shared regional cause.

Regarding the issue of forced displacement, it is a regional powder keg that I hesitate to even write about. Those facing potential displacement already live as strangers in their own homeland. If Gaza’s land and coastlines are seen as real estate in the mind of this foreign president, then the rightful place for displaced Gazans should be their original villages inside historic Palestine—not anywhere else. The proposed destinations for their relocation neither have the capacity nor the will to accept them, not out of rejection of the people themselves, but to protect their rights and preserve the sanctity of their land.