Pragmatism, a word often invoked to justify policies that lack objectivity or morals under the guise of realism, has acquired a distinct flavour in the Middle East, all the more so since it became synonymous with US President Donald Trump’s way of functioning.
Pragmatism is not inherently negative, but it can be abused as an instrument to promote policies of oppression, displacement and extermination.
Israel is the prime example of this, as it opportunistically uses the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attacks as a pretext to pursue its radical project to turn not just Gaza but also the West Bank into exclusively Jewish land. Iran, meanwhile, represents another brand of pragmatism – one that is, perhaps counterintuitively, rooted in the ideology of the 1979 revolution, where religion, other states and segments of the Iranian population are weaponised to serve its expansionist and nuclear ambitions.
Mr Trump appears fully supportive of Israel’s vision. There is little ambiguity in his intentions for the “day after” in Gaza, particularly following reports of his recent White House meeting with his son-in-law Jared Kushner and former UK prime minister Tony Blair to discuss what could happen in the Palestinian enclave after the conflict ends.
Mr Trump is excited by the prospect of a “Middle East Riviera”, a project he touted earlier this year before shelving it amid heavy criticism, particularly from the Arab world. Now he is reviving the plan, even if it will involve building atop the rubble of Palestinian homes.
In their brand of pragmatism, the US President and his son-in-law see Gaza’s shoreline as a prime investment opportunity. This has led Mr Trump to endorse Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to annihilate Hamas, remove millions of Palestinians, establish security control over the enclave and effectively annex it.
The irony behind this realism lies in the fact that it is Hamas and its affiliates, through their 2023 assault, that have gifted Israel the pretext for its rampage in Gaza. The Palestinian Authority’s weakness and internal corruption have also contributed to the current plight of Palestinians in the occupied territories.
Israel might end up not getting the recognition it has long sought from key Arab powers, including normalisation with Saudi Arabia, but it doesn’t seem to care. According to a pragmatist reading, the rest of the world is absorbed with a number of other crises and might not maintain enduring interest in the Palestinian plight.
Incidentally, there is a difference between the proposed Riviera project in Gaza and what Mr Trump’s envoy to Syria and Lebanon – his ambassador to Turkey, Tom Barrack – has said about the reconstruction and development of southern Lebanon.
That concept is based on ending Israeli occupation of Lebanese territory, the return of displaced southerners to their homes destroyed by Israel during its war on Hezbollah, and an international-Arab partnership in reconstruction, ensuring stability and prosperity in what would serve as a de facto security buffer between Lebanon and Israel after border demarcation.
For this to happen, the Trump administration must pair its pressure on the Lebanese government to enforce its sovereign decision to monopolise arms with credible pressure on Israel to commit to ending its occupation, under American, European and Arab guarantees.
Notably, while in Lebanon, US Senator Lindsey Graham repeatedly floated the idea of a “joint defence pact” between Washington and Beirut – framed as a mechanism to protect Lebanon’s religious diversity, particularly its Christian community. He stressed that such agreements are rare. He is right because few countries enjoy such pacts with the US, with many wishing they did.
Whether the Trump administration will follow through remains to be seen. But the notion is striking, especially amid American efforts to uproot Iranian influence from Lebanon having already removed it from Syria, with extraordinary pragmatism.
This brings us to Iran, whose ruling elite is seething over the US-brokered meetings between Syrian and Israeli officials. This is given the US’s focus on severing Iran’s foothold in Syria, which carries implications for Tehran’s links to Hezbollah, as well as for its missile and other supply routes to the group. Iran has, of course, loudly opposed the disarmament of Hezbollah and defied the Lebanese state’s sovereignty.
But Tehran is also growing increasingly alarmed by the dual threats of European sanctions and American and Israeli military strikes, both of which Mr Trump has vowed to pursue should Iran’s leadership continue rejecting his conditions.
It is notable that last week’s threat from the European troika of France, Germany and the UK to trigger the snapback mechanism and reimpose UN sanctions on Iran if it continues obstructing co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency has prompted Tehran to provide limited access to the agency. It is still attempting to restrict the IAEA’s access to certain sites. Nonetheless, pragmatism has forced Iranian leaders to eat their words and yield to European demands.
What is happening in the Middle East is that pragmatism is being taken to a different realm; towards what could be called political realism or even cynical realism. While Israel has poisoned the concept of pragmatism with its actions in Gaza, Iran has trivialised it through its contortionist manoeuvres simply for the sake of regime survival.
