Lebanon, Israel, Gaza, Iran: Trump's new Middle East advisor reveals his vision to "Le Point"
EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW. "Le Point" managed to get in touch with Masaad Boulos. For the first time, he gives a French media his analysis of the main crises shaking the region.
Interview by Armin Arefi
Published on 03/12/2024 at 18:33
It's the president's surprise. Donald Trump announced Sunday that he had appointed Lebanese-American businessman Masaad Boulos as his Middle East adviser. Aged 53, this longtime Republican, who built his fortune selling cars in Nigeria, is none other than the father of one of the American president's sons-in-law. He was propelled into the American billionaire's inner circle after the marriage, in 2022, of his son Michael Boulos to Tiffany Trump, one of the president-elect's daughters.
In an exclusive interview with Le Point, Masaad Boulos analyses the various crises shaking the region and explains the approach that the new American administration will take.
• Le Point: How does it feel to be President Trump's new Middle East advisor?
• Masaad Boulos: It is a great honor to have been appointed by President Trump to be part of his team, and at the same time it is a great responsibility to have to work on a region that has been suffering for some time. The vision is to achieve lasting peace in the Middle East. We have four years to work and we hope to achieve something that will be sustainable for the future and generations to come.
• What do you think is the most urgent issue in the Middle East?
• The first issue on which there has been a very important development is the agreement concluded a week ago between Lebanon and Israel, which was facilitated by the United States and France. It is a historic agreement for both countries, the importance of which will be measured in the weeks and months to come. It is very comprehensive and covers all the necessary points. There was a misunderstanding at the beginning, especially in Lebanon, where it was believed that this document only covered the region located south of the Litani River, but this is not true at all. It deals with the entire country, with the disarmament of all armed groups, both militias and paramilitary groups.
The text is very specific about the application of UN resolutions, whether 1701 or 1559. Thus, only a certain number of institutions have the right to hold weapons in Lebanon, including the Lebanese army, internal security, customs services and the municipal police.
• If you do not name it, you are denying Hezbollah the right to hold weapons. How can you prohibit it from doing so on the ground?
• This is a very good question, which is not an easy one. Let me tell you first that according to some estimates, nearly 70% of strategic weapons and missile and drone depots have been destroyed during this war. As for what remains, it is normally the Lebanese state and therefore the Lebanese army that has the role of disarming the militias and paramilitary groups. Now, we know very well that this process cannot be achieved overnight, and that it will take months, if not longer.
The ceasefire agreement adopted by the Council of Ministers in any case gives the Lebanese army full latitude to begin implementing it. Under the text, the Lebanese army is also responsible for controlling the flow of weapons from the Syrian border, Beirut airport or the port of the capital, which are now under its control.
• But does this agreement still hold, with the Lebanese authorities denouncing numerous violations of the ceasefire by the Israeli army?
• Yes, that's true, but we see the same thing on the other side. It's not a surprise. We are currently in a 60-day test period, and the text of the agreement itself talks about the right of each party to defend itself.
• What role exactly does the United States play in monitoring this ceasefire agreement?
• What is very important in this agreement is the monitoring committee responsible for its implementation. Within it, the United States and France must verify that all its details are actually implemented on the ground. Because if Resolution 1701 was not implemented at all when it was adopted in 2006, it is precisely because there was no mechanism at the time to ensure its implementation. An error corrected by this agreement.
• Do you think that Lebanese MPs should hurry up to appoint a President of the Republic as early as January 9?
• We think they have time. On January 9 (the date on which Parliament is scheduled to meet), it will be two years and two months since there was a president in Lebanon. In my opinion, the Lebanese can wait another two or three months to do things properly, within the framework of a comprehensive and comprehensive agreement. There is no need to hurry up and elect just anyone, anyhow. On the contrary, we must try to ensure the participation of the absolute majority of the representatives of the Lebanese people and not obtain the election of a president with only 65 votes.
• What do you mean by a global agreement?
• An agreement that includes all the reforms needed to rebuild Lebanon, its institutions – judicial and security –, respect for democracy and the Lebanese Constitution, as well as the implementation of the ceasefire agreement. All these aspects are very important. It will also be necessary to have a certain vision of the Council of Ministers and to know who will chair it, which parties will be represented, what their restructuring program will be, including on the economic and fiscal level. Finally, it is necessary to ensure that the opposition, which today makes up almost half of Parliament, is well represented.
• In Syria, how do you analyze the recent breakthrough of Islamist rebels in Aleppo?
• It is very complicated to give one's opinion. Frankly, things are happening so quickly in Syria, and can change from one hour to the next. There will of course be roles to play, on the part of Turkey, Russia and, of course, the United States and other countries in the region, including Iran, but I prefer not to go into details at the moment because developments are too fast.
• Will the next American administration wish to facilitate a transition of power in Damascus or, on the contrary, rehabilitate Bashar al-Assad?
• I can't tell you.
• President Trump spoke on Monday about Gaza, giving Hamas an ultimatum to release Israeli hostages. How does he plan to differentiate himself from Joe Biden on this issue?
• The President is very clear that there is no reason today to delay the release of the hostages. The war is practically over. There is practically no more significant military activity. The only issue that remains is the hostages, and the parties have already agreed on several occasions on an exchange between hostages and Palestinian prisoners. There may still be disagreements over some Palestinian personalities, but apart from that, both sides have agreed on the broad outlines of an agreement.
The president therefore believes that the hostages must be released immediately and that there must be no further delay. According to him, their fate should not be linked to other issues related to the day after in Gaza. Several countries are currently helping to achieve this goal, whether it is Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, or even Turkey. Because it is well known that some representatives of Hamas are currently in this country.
• Does this mean that you think Turkey should replace Qatar in the role of mediator between Israel, the United States and Hamas?
• No, I mentioned Turkey because it is now home to Hamas officials and has influence over them. I am not talking about this country to provide some kind of leadership on this issue. Of course Qatar plays a very, very important role. It has been very clear that it is prepared to continue to play this role, as has Egypt.
• There are many questions about the future of Gaza, as some Israeli ministers openly talk about recolonizing the Palestinian enclave. What is your opinion?
• As you know, we are currently in the transition period and we do not have the right to really interfere in the foreign policy of the United States, while the Biden administration is still in power and managing American diplomacy. We only give our opinion and cannot demand anything.
That being said, there are several plans today and we cannot say that a final decision has been made, although it could happen in the future. What President Trump expressed yesterday in his tweet is that we should not link all issues related to the future of Gaza to the hostage issue. The first thing is to release the hostages immediately and carry out this exchange. Afterwards, we can deal with all the other points.
• Do you believe that the issue of hostages should not be linked to that of a ceasefire in Gaza?
• No, it is certain that this is the framework within which the hostages will be released, namely a temporary ceasefire. The main lines of the agreement have already been established and there are only very small details to be settled on a few names, the number of people released [on the Palestinian side] and the period over which the exchanges should take place. A road map has already been established for implementation over one or two months within the framework of a ceasefire. But as you know, the guns have practically fallen silent in Gaza, even if there are small clashes that break out from time to time. There is no longer any significant military activity.
• Is northern Gaza not still completely besieged by the Israeli army?
• Yes, yes, of course. That is why this agreement, which we have all seen or heard about, is part of a temporary ceasefire.
• In the West Bank, could the new Trump administration support the pure and simple annexation by Israel of this Palestinian territory as demanded by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich?
• Every person has the right to express themselves with their personal ideas. But at this point, President Trump has not yet publicly addressed these issues, and his administration has not yet put in place a policy related to all of these details. What I can tell you is that starting January 20, there will be a very clear and very specific policy on this subject, which we will all have to respect.
• Will President Trump be able to move forward on reviving the Abraham Accords by securing the normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel without obtaining a Palestinian state in return?
• I think the issue of a road map that would lead to a Palestinian state is an important part of the discussions between the United States and Saudi Arabia. It is certainly a very important point, but it is important to remember that Saudi Arabia is not demanding the creation of a Palestinian state today, but it is asking for a vision and a road map for it, that's all. If you look at the plan that was proposed in 2020 by President Trump ("the deal of the century", editor's note), it spoke very clearly about an eventual Palestinian state.
• Was this Palestinian state not reduced to a mere shadow of its former self?
• It must be remembered that the details were rejected by both sides, by the Israelis and the Palestinians. But I am speaking here only of the principle of a Palestinian state that President Trump's proposal then evoked. Today, the president's priority is to resume discussions on the Abraham Accords, with, of course, Saudi Arabia first. Because we know very well, and the president has said so, that once we reach an agreement with Saudi Arabia on Israel, there will be at least twelve Arab countries that will be immediately ready to follow suit.
If you look at the plan that was proposed in 2020 by President Trump, it spoke very clearly about an eventual Palestinian state.
• Is Iran the main challenge of Donald Trump's second term?
• President Trump is very clear that he absolutely does not want Iran to have a nuclear program. Of course, he is going to put his “maximum pressure” on Iran again, and you have seen that already. Right after he was elected, Iran started changing its policy in the region. We saw it with the deal in Lebanon, and we see it now in Syria.
The Iranians have already begun to change their regional policies, and President Trump has said several times that he is ready to begin negotiations for a new nuclear deal.
• What is Donald Trump's position on regime change in Tehran?
• He did not talk about regime change, but only about a nuclear deal, and the fact that he was ready to engage in serious negotiations with the current regime. But there are three very important points for him: Iran must absolutely not have nuclear power; Iran's ballistic missiles pose a risk not only to Israel, but also to the Gulf countries; and finally the problem posed by Iranian proxies (groups acting as proxies for Iran, editor's note) in the region, whether in Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq or Yemen. Apart from these three axes, President Trump did not talk about regime change.
This article or interview was forwarded to me in French, supposedly given by Mr Masaad Boulos to the French "Le Point" with Google's help I've translated it to facilitate reading the thoughts and strategy of the new Trump administration, at least in regard to the M-E. As Mr. Masaad is now officially one of its members.
As always, my many thanks to all my good readers.
No comments:
Post a Comment