Nournews: While the United States and President Trump, following their failure in the Ramadan War, have been compelled to reach an agreement with Tehran—and while Trump himself has publicly expressed dissatisfaction with Israeli attacks—his recent comments during a bilateral meeting with the Emir of Qatar have revealed another dimension of Washington’s regional policy.

On Tuesday, Trump stated that if Israel could not accomplish its mission without causing further casualties, Syria could confront Hezbollah instead. He added that he had advised Israel to “let Syria handle Hezbollah,” arguing that “they would do it better.”

These remarks come ahead of a visit by al-Julani, the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and Syria’s self-proclaimed ruler. On one hand, the comments amount to a clear admission of the failure of the United States and Israel in confronting the Resistance, particularly Hezbollah. On the other hand, they may signal the beginning of a new phase of American crisis-making in the region—a development that demands vigilance from the peoples of West Asia.

The Collapse of the Dream of Eliminating the Resistance

The United States and Israel had claimed that the Ramadan War had destroyed the capabilities of the Resistance, from Hezbollah in Lebanon to Iran itself, leaving no option but surrender. Yet Trump’s appeal to Syrian militants is itself strong evidence of the hollowness of those claims.

His remarks make clear that the Resistance has not been weakened and that even American leaders no longer seriously believe it can be eliminated in the foreseeable future. Instead, it is Israel that, despite extensive Western support, faces growing military and strategic challenges. Its military strength has been increasingly strained, while globally it is the Resistance that enjoys significant public sympathy. Meanwhile, Israel and the United States face greater international hostility than ever before.

From this perspective, Trump’s comments represent an explicit acknowledgment of the collapse of the dream of destroying the Resistance and a confirmation of its enduring influence in regional affairs.

Barrack’s Mission and the Creation of a New Front Against the Resistance

Trump’s proposal to place Israel under the security umbrella of Syrian militants is particularly noteworthy when viewed alongside the appointment of Tom Barrack as the U.S. envoy for Iraqi affairs.

Barrack, a strong supporter of Israel, has previously been involved in efforts in Syria and Lebanon aimed at encouraging normalization with Israel. In Iraq, he appears likely to pursue pressure for the disarmament of Resistance groups, encourage Syrian passivity in regional affairs, and potentially help facilitate U.S. military activities and logistical support for Syrian militants targeting Hezbollah. Al-Julani himself has recently leveled accusations against the Lebanese Resistance.

America’s Familiar Use of Terrorism

Although Trump acknowledged in 2016 that the Obama administration had created ISIS and other terrorist groups, he now appears willing to rely on the same forces to advance American objectives in West Asia and support Israel.

Al-Julani, whose roots lie in ISIS-linked and extremist movements, rose to power in Syria with the backing of Israel, Western governments, and some Arab states. Washington’s decision to lift sanctions on Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and remove the multimillion-dollar bounty once placed on him exposed what critics describe as a double standard on terrorism: terrorism that threatens American interests is considered “bad,” while terrorism that serves Washington’s goals becomes acceptable and even worthy of support.

Trump now presents al-Julani as a guarantor of Israel’s security, despite the fact that shortly after taking control of Damascus, al-Julani openly declared that he had no hostility toward Israel and was prepared to ensure its security.

Betraying Syria: From Silence Over Occupation to Protecting the Occupiers

Meanwhile, Israel continues to occupy territories stretching from the Golan Heights and Quneitra to areas near Damascus, while al-Julani has taken no meaningful action to recover them.

Entrusting Israel’s security to a figure who neither possesses the will nor the capability to reclaim occupied Syrian territory reveals the true nature of his rule and casts doubt on claims regarding the popular legitimacy of his government.

Crisis Creation: Washington’s Permanent Strategy in West Asia

Trump’s remarks once again demonstrate that neither the United States nor Israel possesses a genuine plan for peace and security in the region. According to this view, creating instability and destruction remains a means for Washington to preserve its influence and support Israel. Normalization with Israel, therefore, is seen not as a path to stability but as a mechanism that turns regional states into instruments for expanding insecurity.

Supporters of this argument point to the role played by countries such as the UAE and Bahrain during the Ramadan War, claiming that they effectively became logistical hubs that facilitated Israeli operations.

Under these circumstances, the Resistance Front is portrayed as a key pillar of regional stability and security. Iran’s determination to expel the United States from the region and confront Israel is therefore presented not merely as a strategy for its own security but as an approach aimed at safeguarding the security of the entire region.

Countries that welcomed the Iran-U.S. agreement in the name of peace and stability, this argument concludes, should support Iran and the Resistance in opposing both the American military presence and Israeli policies. Only then, it argues, can a new region-centered security order emerge—one that elevates West Asia’s role in global affairs beyond economics and energy into the political and security spheres.