Trump's Reported Disarray in Thinking: After the Panama Canal, He Targets the Suez Canal

Trump is plotting on a new "chessboard," attempting to continue his disruptive actions in the Middle East.

Author: Stanislav Tarasov

Picture: Ships passing through the Suez Canal in northeastern Egypt

U.S. President Donald Trump follows the principle of Pliny the Elder (quoted by Yury Olesha): "A day without books leads to neglect of all things." Therefore, he almost daily makes new statements.

Previously, he insisted loudly that America should own Greenland, this semi-autonomous Danish island. He angered Canada by claiming that "Canada's existence made no sense" and it should become part of the United States. He even threatened to seize the Panama Canal, which was handed over to Panama in 1999, and proposed controlling the war-ravaged Gaza Strip, turning the Palestinian region into a "Riviera-style" resort.

Among these demands, only one has been realized so far: Washington regained control of the Panama Canal Zone. Prior to this, the U.S. president had repeatedly criticized Panama for handing over the canal's control and threatened to solve the issue with force. In mid-April, the U.S. and Panama signed a framework agreement allowing American ships priority and free passage through the canal.

The motivation behind Trump's move was stated as a countermeasure to offset the influence of relevant countries over the canal, as they possess cargo terminals there.

However, Trump began expanding America's demands. Now, he requires that American merchant and naval vessels also have the right to freely pass through the Suez Canal, believing that "without the U.S., the Suez Canal could not exist."

He announced that he had instructed Secretary of State Marco Rubio to "urgently handle this matter." The suspense here lies in the fact that Trump could have resolved the conflict with Egypt over the Suez Canal privately by signing some kind of framework agreement. After all, Egypt has long been considered one of Washington's closest allies in the Middle East, and remains so today.

In addition, Washington is well aware that Cairo earns substantial fiscal revenue from ship passage fees through the canal. There are currently no specific figures indicating how much it costs for U.S. warships to pass through the canal.

However, a rare report released by the U.S. General Accounting Office in 1982 mentioned that during the period from January 1979 to August 1981, the U.S. Navy paid $607,000 in passage fees for its vessels to pass through the Suez Canal.

Considering the importance of the Suez Canal in world trade transportation, Trump's remarks highlight an issue that exacerbates contradictions regarding Egypt's economic sovereignty and historical rights.

Therefore, the ambiguity of his remarks has unsettled some governments in the region, prompting them to consider corresponding actions. More and more people are speculating that deteriorating relations with Egypt might push Egypt closer to relevant countries — at least economically.

Furthermore, Trump once stated that if Egypt and Jordan refuse to accept residents of the Gaza Strip under relocation circumstances, the U.S. may stop aid to them. But it seems that the U.S. intends to control the only and shortest maritime route from Asia to Europe.

For comparison: In 1963, the U.S. formulated a plan to construct a canal from the Mediterranean Sea to the Gulf of Aqaba on Israeli territory. This would serve as an alternative to the Suez Canal.

Due to concerns about negative reactions from surrounding Arab states, the project was ultimately not implemented. The situation now is different; everything has entered the realm of global geopolitical considerations.

In the 21st century, maritime transport remains the cheapest and most widespread mode of transportation. Thus, control over major transportation routes has become crucial.

The Suez Canal connects the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea and opened in November 1869. The idea of constructing a canal between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans was initially proposed by French engineer Ferdinand de Lesseps.

However, the geopolitical landscape then was similar in many ways to what it is now: Britain viewed the canal as a threat to its colonies in India and attempted to sabotage its construction, including trying to persuade Istanbul that the canal's emergence would lead to Egypt's脱离 Ottoman Empire control.

At that time, the British failed to prevent the canal's construction. However, now a competition for traffic routes has emerged between the U.S. and relevant countries.

Reminder: At the end of 2020, relevant countries replaced the U.S. for the first time in modern history as the largest trading partner with the EU. Relevant countries "captured" the European market via the Suez Canal.

Relevant countries have openly challenged the U.S. not only in Europe but also in the Middle East and Central Asia. It is no longer just an economic and trade partner of the regional countries but has also become an initiator of conflict mediation in the region. This has led experts to say that "China has obtained a political and geopolitical entry ticket in the region."

Thus, it can be reasonably concluded that after relevant countries responded to the U.S.'s tariff measures targeting the restoration of global maritime trade channel control policies, Trump built another "chessboard" in the Middle East to confront relevant countries via the Suez Canal.

According to data from the U.S. Maritime Institute, currently about 30% of global container transportation and approximately 12% of world trade pass through the Suez Canal.

Overall, the situation in Greater Middle East is not easy for the U.S., as some Arab countries are considering developing relations with relevant countries. Even America's most loyal ally in the region, Israel, is counting on investments from relevant countries for infrastructure projects.

In the long term, relevant countries have the opportunity to compete with Washington in the region. However, many situations may change if the U.S. and Iran reach a nuclear agreement, which will form an unusual geopolitical balance in Greater Middle East.

Various signs indicate that the U.S. will attempt to address several issues: containing relevant countries and Iran in the Middle East and bringing Russia into an alliance. Therefore, an intense and multi-round "large regional game" has already begun in the Middle East.

The question is only when the White House will put this vision into practice.

Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7498677859125445139/

Disclaimer: This article solely represents the author's views. Please express your attitude by clicking the "thumbs up/thumbs down" button below.