SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
qatar
Trump Envoy Ripped for Claim That 'Benevolent Monarchy' Is Best for Middle East
"The US labels dictators and monarchies benevolent when their behavior is aligned with US interest and when their behavior isn’t aligned with US interest they are despots," said one critic.
Dec 08, 2025
Tom Barrack, President Donald Trump's ambassador to Turkey and special envoy for Syria, faced backlash Monday after arguing that US-backed Middle Eastern monarchies—most of which are ruled by prolific human rights violators—offer the best model for governing nations in the tumultuous region.
Speaking at the Doha Forum in Qatar on Sunday, Barrack, who is also a billionaire real estate investor, cautioned against trying to impose democratic governance on the Middle East, noting that efforts to do so—sometimes by war or other military action—have failed.
“Every time we intervene, whether it's in Libya, Iraq, or any of the other places where we've tried to create a colonized mandate, it has not been successful," he said. "We end up with paralysis."
"I don’t see a democracy," Barrack said of the Middle East. "Israel can claim to be a democracy, but in this region, whether you like it or not, what has worked best is, in fact, a benevolent monarchy."
Addressing Syria's yearlong transition from longtime authoritarian rule under the Assad dynasty, Barrack added that the Syrian people must determine their political path "without going in with Western expectations of, 'We want a democracy in 12 months.'"
While Barrack's rejection of efforts to force democracy upon Middle Eastern countries drew praise, some Israelis bristled at what they claimed is the suggestion that their country is not a democracy, while other observers pushed back on the envoy's assertion regarding regional monarchies and use of what one Palestinian digital media platform called "classic colonial rhetoric."
"The reality on the ground is the opposite of his claim: It is the absence of democratic rights, accountable governance, and inclusive federal structures that has fueled Syria’s fragmentation, empowered militias, and pushed communities toward separatism," Syrian Kurdish journalist Ronahi Hasan said on social media.
Ronahi continued:
When an American official undermines the universal principles the US itself claims to defend, it sends a dangerous message: that Syrians do not deserve the same political rights as others and that minority communities should simply accept centralized authoritarianism as their fate.
Syria doesn’t need another foreign lecture romanticizing monarchy. It needs a political system that protects all its people—Druze, Alawite, Kurdish, Sunni, Christian—through genuine power-sharing, decentralization, and guarantees of equality.
"Federalism is not the problem," Ronahi added. "The problem is denying Syrians the right to shape their own future."
Abdirizak Mohamed, a lawmaker and former foreign minister in Somalia, said on social media: "Tom Barrack made public what is already known. The US labels dictators and monarchies benevolent when their behavior is aligned with US interest, and when their behavior isn’t aligned with US interest they are despots. Labeling dictators benevolent is [an] oxymoron that shows US hypocrisy."
For nearly a century, the US has supported Middle Eastern monarchies as successive administrations sought to gain and maintain control over the region's vast oil resources. This has often meant propping up monarchs in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran (before 1979), the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Qatar—regardless of their often horrific human rights records.
While nothing new in terms of US policy and practice in the region, the Trump administration's recently published National Security Strategy prioritizes "flexible realism" over human rights and democracy and uses more candid language than past presidents have in explaining Washington's support for repressive monarchs.
"The [US] State Department will likely need to clarify whether Barrack’s comments represent official policy or personal opinion," argued an editorial in Middle East 24. "Regardless, his words have exposed an uncomfortable truth about US foreign policy in the Middle East: the persistent gap between democratic ideals and strategic realities."
"Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this episode is what it reveals about American confidence in its own values," the editorial added. "If US diplomats no longer believe democracy can work in challenging environments, what does this say about America’s faith in the universal appeal of its founding principles?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Foreign Policy Experts Warn US-Saudi Security Pact Would Be 'Risky' to Middle East Stability and Human Rights
The assumption of US backing allowed the Saudis to wage a brutal war in Yemen that cost close to 400,000 lives without fear of consequences. "Now imagine if Saudi Arabia had an ironclad US security guarantee," wrote one scholar.
Nov 11, 2025
As Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman prepares to meet with US President Donald Trump next week, experts are warning that it could cause even greater instability in the Middle East if the president agrees to the Gulf regime's requests for a defense pact.
On November 18, the crown prince, commonly known as MBS, will be welcomed in Washington for the first time since 2018. That meeting with Trump came just months before the prince signed off on the infamous murder of the Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi as part of a brutal crackdown on dissenters in the country.
Trump defended MBS from international outrage and isolation at the time and has continued to sing his praises since returning to office. In May, after inking a record $142 billion weapons sale to the Saudis during a tour of the Middle East, Trump gave a speech, practically salivating over the crown prince.
“We have great partners in the world, but we have none stronger, and nobody like the gentleman that’s right before me, he’s your greatest representative, your greatest representative,” Trump said. “And if I didn’t like him, I would get out of here so fast. You know that, don’t you? He knows me well.”
“I do, I like him a lot. I like him too much, that’s why we give so much, you know?” the president continued. “Too much. I like you too much!”
“Oh, what I do for the crown prince,” he added.
Now, according to a report Tuesday from the Financial Times, the Saudis are coming to Washington seeking a similar security guarantee to the one Trump recently granted Qatar, which one State Department diplomat referred to as "on par with the mutual defense commitments the United States provides its closest allies.”
Trump signed an executive order stating that the US would respond to any attack on Qatar by taking all “lawful and appropriate measures—including diplomatic, economic, and, if necessary, military."
That agreement came weeks after Israel launched an unprecedented assault on Hamas leadership as they met for negotiations in Qatar's capital city of Doha to end the two-year genocide in Gaza. Without the security agreement, the Qataris had threatened to walk away from their role in mediating the talks that ultimately led to October's "ceasefire" agreement.
The deal expected to be reached between Trump and the Saudis has been described as "Qatar-plus," not just pledging defense of the state were it to come under attack, but regarding it as a threat to American “peace and security."
Such an agreement was already underway during the tenure of former President Joe Biden, following the normalization of relations with Israel, but was upended by Hamas's October 7 attacks and two years of indiscriminate slaughter Israel launched in response, which bin Salman referred to as a "genocide."
While MBS has publicly stated that he would not agree to continue normalization with Israel without a Palestinian state, he has not shied away from a separate security deal with the US, which reportedly includes "enhanced military and intelligence cooperation."
According to Christopher Preble and Will Smith, a pair of foreign policy researchers at the Stimson Center's Reimagining US Grand Strategy program, the Trump team hopes that by pursuing a heightened security and financial relationship with the Saudis, they can coax them back towards detente with Israel and bring them back into the US orbit in response to what Trump views as an overly flirtatious posture toward China.
"These developments suggest a troubling belief that handing out security guarantees is a quick, cost-free way to reassure anxious partners and ensure their alignment with US priorities. That belief is mistaken," the researchers wrote in Responsible Statecraft Tuesday. "A US-Saudi defense pact would be unnecessary, risky, and unlikely to achieve its unclear aims. Rather than revive the misguided Biden administration initiative, the Trump administration should shelve the idea once and for all."
They said there are few upsides to the normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel, and that if it were to occur, it would be little more than a formal recognition of the cooperation between the two nations that already exists in combating Iran's influence.
While a deal would lead to few benefits, they argued it would "come with significant downsides," potentially forcing the US to ride along with "reckless driving" by the Saudis, especially with its neighbors in Yemen.
"Extensive US support emboldened Saudi Arabia to wage a disastrous, failed intervention there that dragged on for seven years, fueling a war that claimed close to 400,000 lives, including nearly 20,000 civilians killed by airstrikes," the researchers said.
International relations scholar Adam Gallagher pointed out that the Saudis did all of this merely "because of what it assumed would be continual US backing."
"Now imagine if Saudi Arabia had an ironclad US security guarantee," he said.
The result, he warned, would be something akin to Israel's sense of total impunity to wage destruction in Gaza.
"When a great power provides a security pledge to a less powerful ally, the weaker state is more willing to take on risk, and the patron often ends up paying the price," he wrote. "There is simply no strategic reason for the United States to imperil its interests or incur costs if Saudi Arabia engaged in renewed adventurism."
Human rights groups have noted that a deal also has massive implications for the Saudi regime's actions at home, where its leaders have faced little accountability for their repression of dissent.
“Saudi Arabia’s crown prince is trying to rebrand himself as a global statesman, but the reality at home is mass repression, record numbers of executions, and zero tolerance for dissent," said Sarah Yager, the Washington director at Human Rights Watch. "US officials should be pressing for change, not posing for photos.”
Matt Wells, the deputy director of Reprieve US, emphasized that outside pressure on the regime has mattered in the past: "In the fallout from Jamal Khashoggi’s assassination, Mohammed bin Salman’s regime felt international pressure to improve its human rights record, and that pressure made a difference. Some child defendants on death row were resentenced and released, and from July 2021 to July 2025, there were no executions for childhood crimes.”
“Beneath Saudi Arabia’s glittering facade, the repression of Saudi citizens and residents continues unabated," said Abdullah Aljuraywi, monitoring and campaigns officer at ALQST for Human Rights. "To avoid emboldening this, the US should use its leverage to secure concrete commitments, including the release of detained activists, lifting of arbitrary travel bans, and an end to politically motivated executions.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
From Gaza to Yemen to Doha, Will Israel Ever Be Held to Account for Its Terrorism?
Israel believes it can do whatever it wants, wherever it wants, with no consequences. When will world leaders finally intervene with action to stop this lawlessness and madness?
Sep 13, 2025
Responding to Israel’s September 10 attack aimed at Hamas negotiators in Qatar, all 12 members of the UN Security Council issued a toothless statement of condemnation that didn’t even mention Israel by name. This cowardly response underscores the pathetic international reaction to nearly two years of genocide.
Israel believes it can do whatever it wants, wherever it wants, with no consequences–which has been true for two years now. It has already destroyed Gaza. It is expanding settlements, annexing the West Bank, threatening Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iran. It has attacked aid flotillas, bombed refugee camps, and assassinated negotiators. Now it has bombed a U.S.-allied Gulf capital. And still, the world hesitates.
One would think that the bombing of Qatar — a U.S. ally, the home of U.S. Central Command, and the very place where ceasefire negotiations were being brokered–would be a game changer. The strike killed five Hamas staffers and a Qatari security officer. The senior Hamas leaders survived, but the real target was not just them. The target was diplomacy itself.
Trump, for his part, has been playing a double game: issuing ultimatums to Hamas while allowing Israel to bomb the very negotiators the U.S. asked Qatar to host. His excuse that his envoy “called too late” to warn Doha is laughable. The truth is simpler: Washington could have stopped this. Its air defenses sat idle. Its umbrella of “protection” never opened. The U.S. is not a bystander; it is complicit.
The world is watching, and millions of people across continents are demanding an end to this genocide.
Netanyahu bragged about authorizing a “surgical precision strike” in Doha on what he called “terrorist chiefs.” But let’s be clear: this was state terrorism, carried out in broad daylight against a sovereign country at the heart of U.S. strategy in the Gulf. It was an assassination attempt deliberately timed to blow up the possibility of a ceasefire by killing the very negotiators needed to reach one. For nearly two years, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has consistently obstructed ceasefire talks. The strike on Doha is final proof that Israel has no interest in peace — only endless war.
In Europe, close Israeli allies Germany, France and Britain condemned the strike, as did China and Russia. Even in Israel, the attack provoked outrage from hostage families. Einav Zangauker, whose son is captive in Gaza, said Netanyahu had “essentially sentenced my Matan to death.” She asked the question millions are asking: why does Israel blow up every small chance for a deal?
And the Arab world? Qatar’s prime minister Mohammed Al Thani called the attack “state terrorism,” warning the region that Netanyahu is destabilizing everything and that Netanyahu needs to be brought to justice. Saudi Arabia called it “a violation of international law and an unacceptable aggression against a fellow Arab state.” Jordan warned of “dangerous escalation.” The UAE expressed “grave concern.”
Yet words are cheap. Where is the action? Where is the red line? Arab states have watched Palestinians burned alive in tents, starved at aid lines, bombed in their homes for two years — and offered little more than statements.
If the world allows Israel to get away with bombing Doha, then no country in the Middle East is safe. Arab leaders who rushed to normalize with Israel under Trump’s so-called Abraham Accords–the UAE, Morocco, Bahrain, Sudan–now find themselves exposed as collaborators while Netanyahu bombs Arab capitals with impunity. The very least they must do right now is rescind those accords, and the rest of the Arab world must denounce any moves to normalize relations.
Qatar is convening an emergency Arab-Islamic summit, and has called for a collective Arab response. This must be more than words: a coordinated campaign to cut trade, sever ties, and impose sanctions on the rogue Israeli state.
Words are cheap. Where is the action? Where is the red line? Arab states have watched Palestinians burned alive in tents, starved at aid lines, bombed in their homes for two years — and offered little more than statements.
From there the crisis will move to New York. As the new session of the UN opens and the U.S. continues to use its veto to stop the Security Council from taking action, the General Assembly must put the crisis at the top of its agenda. It must invoke the Uniting for Peace resolution to call for the following:
- A UN protection force to deliver humanitarian aid, protect civilians, preserve evidence of war crimes, and facilitate reconstruction;
- Comprehensive sanctions and military embargo;
- Withdrawal of Israel’s General Assembly credentials;
- Reactivation of the UN’s long-dormant anti-apartheid mechanism, and
- Establishing a war crimes tribunal.
The world is watching, and millions of people across continents are demanding an end to this genocide. The UN General Assembly still has the chance to rise to the occasion, to prove that international law is not just words on paper. The bombing of Doha should be the breaking point — the moment the world finally acts.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular