what Oman is facing is a threat to the idea of the independent state that does not conduct its foreign policy according to embassy instructions.
Translated from Arabic
Who Stands Behind Trump's Threats to the Sultanate of Oman 
It is impossible to approach the threat issued by U.S. President Donald Trump against the Sultanate of Oman—when he said, "Oman must comply and act exactly like any other party, or else we will have to blow it up"—by dismissing it as mere slip of the tongue or a tweet stemming from personal whimsy.
The problem lies in the mindset behind it, that structure which reduces the world to followers who must submit, and to rebels who must be destroyed.
To understand why Oman has been placed in the crosshairs of this delirium, one must return to the nature of the Omani position in its regional context. Ever since the Abraham Accords were promoted as a strategic achievement that achieves peace by circumventing the core of the Palestinian issue, Muscat has taken a stance divergent from that of some of the rushers toward normalization, and its response was clear: a political rejection expressed by Oman's Foreign Minister, His Excellency Sayyid Badr Albusaidi, when he stated that his country would not join these accords and would not be part of what is called the Peace Council, and most recently it appears to have also rejected Trump's demands.
This rejection is based on a principled vision that there is no true peace without justice, and that attempting to legitimize the occupation through economic and security normalization does not build sustainable peace, but rather postpones the explosion.
As for the second file that made Oman defiant against "compliance," it is its stance during the war on Iran. At a time when the U.S. administration was waging a war on Iran supported by a Gulf state, Omani diplomacy stepped forward to speak clearly: The war on Iran is a major strategic mistake. Muscat did not content itself with warning of the catastrophic repercussions of a regional war on security and the economy; it also played a practical role in de-escalating tensions and containing escalation. This stance was an alignment with reason in the face of axis politics that seeks to drag the region into the abyss. And in the logic of the groups that bet on war to reshape maps of influence, Oman became an adversary because it practices a policy of reason, and because it refuses to be merely a logistical platform or political cover.
In deep political analysis, Trump's threat to Oman cannot be read in isolation from the regional dimension that nourished it and pushed it to the forefront. What came from the U.S. president is the culmination of ongoing Emirati pressures exerted by Abu Dhabi on decision-makers in Washington, leveraging its close ties to the U.S. administration and its sprawling influence in decision-making centers there. The Emirati directive came as an extension of a strategy of political revenge against the Sultanate of Oman, which refused to be a pliant tool aligning with Emirati positions.
And this revenge has roots that strike into two crucial files: The first is Oman's clear and explicit stance during the recent war on Iran, where Muscat did not content itself with declaring its rejection of the war and describing it as a catastrophic mistake; rather, it practiced active de-escalation diplomacy that foiled the Emirati bet on inflaming the conflict and expanding its scope. And the second is Oman's structural opposition to Emirati policy in the region, that policy based on building military axes, settling issues by force, and pouncing on the concept of the nation-state in favor of cross-border alliances. In both tracks, Oman represented a model of rejection of dictation, clinging to dialogue and balance—a matter that made it a target for double punishment: American in form, and Emirati in essence and motives.
In the end, what Oman is facing is a threat to the idea of the independent state that does not conduct its foreign policy according to embassy instructions. But the problem is not with Oman, for the state that withstood the most brutal empires in history will not break before reckless statements. The problem lies with those who chose to be a "compliant other party," and with those who directed and drew strength from the outside against the inside.
Anis Mansour
It is impossible to approach the threat issued by U.S. President Donald Trump against the Sultanate of Oman—when he said, "Oman must comply and act exactly like any other party, or else we will have to blow it up"—by dismissing it as mere slip of the tongue or a tweet stemming from personal whimsy.
The problem lies in the mindset behind it, that structure which reduces the world to followers who must submit, and to rebels who must be destroyed.
To understand why Oman has been placed in the crosshairs of this delirium, one must return to the nature of the Omani position in its regional context. Ever since the Abraham Accords were promoted as a strategic achievement that achieves peace by circumventing the core of the Palestinian issue, Muscat has taken a stance divergent from that of some of the rushers toward normalization, and its response was clear: a political rejection expressed by Oman's Foreign Minister, His Excellency Sayyid Badr Albusaidi, when he stated that his country would not join these accords and would not be part of what is called the Peace Council, and most recently it appears to have also rejected Trump's demands.
This rejection is based on a principled vision that there is no true peace without justice, and that attempting to legitimize the occupation through economic and security normalization does not build sustainable peace, but rather postpones the explosion.
As for the second file that made Oman defiant against "compliance," it is its stance during the war on Iran. At a time when the U.S. administration was waging a war on Iran supported by a Gulf state, Omani diplomacy stepped forward to speak clearly: The war on Iran is a major strategic mistake. Muscat did not content itself with warning of the catastrophic repercussions of a regional war on security and the economy; it also played a practical role in de-escalating tensions and containing escalation. This stance was an alignment with reason in the face of axis politics that seeks to drag the region into the abyss. And in the logic of the groups that bet on war to reshape maps of influence, Oman became an adversary because it practices a policy of reason, and because it refuses to be merely a logistical platform or political cover.
In deep political analysis, Trump's threat to Oman cannot be read in isolation from the regional dimension that nourished it and pushed it to the forefront. What came from the U.S. president is the culmination of ongoing Emirati pressures exerted by Abu Dhabi on decision-makers in Washington, leveraging its close ties to the U.S. administration and its sprawling influence in decision-making centers there. The Emirati directive came as an extension of a strategy of political revenge against the Sultanate of Oman, which refused to be a pliant tool aligning with Emirati positions.
And this revenge has roots that strike into two crucial files: The first is Oman's clear and explicit stance during the recent war on Iran, where Muscat did not content itself with declaring its rejection of the war and describing it as a catastrophic mistake; rather, it practiced active de-escalation diplomacy that foiled the Emirati bet on inflaming the conflict and expanding its scope. And the second is Oman's structural opposition to Emirati policy in the region, that policy based on building military axes, settling issues by force, and pouncing on the concept of the nation-state in favor of cross-border alliances. In both tracks, Oman represented a model of rejection of dictation, clinging to dialogue and balance—a matter that made it a target for double punishment: American in form, and Emirati in essence and motives.
In the end, what Oman is facing is a threat to the idea of the independent state that does not conduct its foreign policy according to embassy instructions. But the problem is not with Oman, for the state that withstood the most brutal empires in history will not break before reckless statements. The problem lies with those who chose to be a "compliant other party," and with those who directed and drew strength from the outside against the inside.
Anis MansourRate this translation:
posted by Satish Sharma at
03:46
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home