Trump’s Decision on Jerusalem; Reactions, Contexts and Outcomes

Dr. Vahideh Ahmadi

On December 6, US President Donald Trump announced the transfer of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of the Israeli regime.
The Republican Jewish Coalition, AIPAC, the Zionist Organization of America, the Congress of the Jews of Europe and … were among the most important organizations that, in keeping with the Israeli authorities, praised Trump and called his decision as a historic one. In contrast, organizations such as Jay Street and Democratic Jewish organizations, which support a two-state solution, called Trump’s decision “a useless step without tangible consequences and only serious dangers”.
Tramp’s emphasis that he is committed to his campaign promises, as well as the emphasis on contradicting his views with President Obama, is among the motivations not only for taking this measure but also for carrying out similar actions.
According to the White House, despite the protests and reactions of the Arab leaders and their peoples towards Trump’s decision, the confrontation with Iran and their victory in their power struggles in the region with the support of the United States, is of higher importance for Arabs.
For the Palestinians of the West Bank, as well as the Gaza Strip, the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of the Israeli regime is an issue of prestige, history and identity, which is unlikely to stop without the adoption of a new decision by the United States.
If Israel and the United States force Abbas to exert pressure on the inhabitants of the West Bank and to stop popular gatherings and protests, his legitimacy among Palestinians to be reduced to the extent that he would not be able to persuade the Palestinians regarding the plans of the White House.
Federica Mogherini’s remarks and her emphasis on the resumption of peace negotiations with the mediation of the Quartet (the United Nations, the European Union, Russia, the United States, and perhaps Jordan and Egypt) indicate the lack of credibility of the US mediation in the Palestinian case for Europeans.
Although the Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia and some Persian Gulf Arab States, view their interests in taking positions against the Islamic Republic of Iran and they are willing to ignore the inconvenient events and developments of Palestine but Trump’s decision, at least at this stage, has hindered the Israeli-Arab relations process and faced it with obstacles.
The recent developments on Jerusalem has proved that the tensions between the Arab states with the Islamic Republic of Iran has made Tel Aviv, accompanied by Washington, to dare to advance some of the issues that are considered as the red line of the Islamic countries.
Although Trump’s policies have led to the hatred of both Americans and Europeans but his recent decision has stabilized this trend. Therefore, the condition is prepsred for more activities of Iran in the field of foreign relations, especially vis-à-vis Europe. This has also provided Iran with the opportunity of trying to lobby to become closer to the anti-Trump Democrats in order to maintain and promote its interests in various fields.
It is very important for Iran to avoid the adoption of policies independent from the collective policies of the region, both in the field of declaration or practice. If the countries in the region think that Iran has entered the field outside of their collective game, and in this way, Iran is prioritized to counter this decision, it is foreseeable for them to change their position and in this case, Palestine will certainly be the greatest looser.
The decision of the President of the United States to transfer the US Embassy to Jerusalem and the recognition of this city as the capital of Israel, is another uncontrollable decision made by this maladroit politician. This decision that its negative implications in various respects namely greater pressure on the Palestinians and a more arrogant Israeli, have been condemned by all regional and international actors in a way that the United States and Israel have been isolated in this area. In addition to the isolation of these two, this decision has carried significant warnings and opportunities especially for the Islamic Republic of Iran.
It is clear that in the period of interaction and constructive relations between the countries of the region, the design and implementation of such plans would face with more barriers that are powerful. Hence, detent and the entry into a relative tranquility so that the relations between Iran and the Arab countries are not to an extent that would be the basis for such plans are among the strategic priorities ahead. The second important point for decision makers and policymakers in the country is the use of the opportunities created by this event. This decision has decreased the reputation of the president of the United States among European countries, and has increased the anger of the civil societies of these countries towards him. Even among Americans, this is the case. It seems that whenever the Public opinion in the United States feels that the Israelis are abusing the US authorities and are involved in decisions and policies of the White House and the Congress, then the public opinion appears to be more opposed to the pro-Israeli politicians.