Mar-a-Lago through Arab eyes: Power, Turkey, Iran, and the cost of Trump’s diplomacy - analysis

From Doha to Riyadh, Cairo to Istanbul, and Damascus to London-based Arab platforms, coverage of the meeting revealed not a single “Arab reaction,” but a spectrum of narratives shaped by national interests, ideological alignments, and anxieties about what the American president’s return to a highly personalized, ultimatum-driven diplomacy could mean for an already volatile region.

Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, offered some of the most visible and critical framing. In an opinion column titled “Netanyahu’s Mar-a-Lago win that wasn’t,” published on December 30, analyst Ori Goldberg questioned the Israeli narrative of victory, arguing that the meeting exposed constraints rather than delivered guarantees, particularly on Gaza governance and Turkey’s role in Syria.

The tone was skeptical, emphasizing costs and trade-offs rather than triumph.

By contrast, Al Arabiya English, reflecting a more Gulf-oriented editorial posture, adopted a largely reportorial tone. Its coverage emphasized the US commander-in-chief’s warning that he would back military action against Iran if Tehran continued developing nuclear or missile capabilities, the discussion of Gaza’s “next phase,” and the announcement that he would receive Israel’s highest civilian honor.

Articles published on December 29 and 30 framed the meeting as a display of deterrence and symbolism rather than as a diplomatic rupture.

Asharq Al-Awsat, the Saudi-owned pan-Arab daily, highlighted the security dimension even more sharply.

In reporting dated December 29, journalist Heba El Koudsy focused on President Trump’s threat to strike Iran again if it rebuilt nuclear or ballistic capacities, while subsequent coverage noted the president’s public admission that he did “not fully agree” with Netanyahu on West Bank policy, an angle presented as a rare but limited divergence within an otherwise solid relationship.

From a Turkish-aligned perspective, TRT Arabic foregrounded points of friction and leverage.

Its reporting emphasized President Trump’s acknowledgment of disagreement with Netanyahu on the West Bank and his warnings to Hamas, situating the meeting within a broader narrative of pressure politics rather than unconditional alignment, an approach consistent with Ankara’s interest in portraying itself as a central regional actor.

More openly critical voices emerged from Middle East Monitor, the London-based outlet often aligned with pro-Palestinian and Muslim Brotherhood-adjacent narratives.

Its coverage focused on three main themes following the meeting: the Israeli president’s denial of the American president’s claim about an imminent pardon for Netanyahu - Hamas accusations that Israeli “stalling” and US silence were obstructing a move to Gaza’s second phase - and Iranian warnings of a “severe response” to any attack. The tone was consistently critical, portraying the Mar-a-Lago meeting as reinforcing Israeli impunity and escalating regional risk.

From Damascus, Syria TV, an outlet broadly aligned with the post-Assad political order under Ahmed al-Sharaa, took a more restrained news approach.

Citing Israeli media, it reported that Netanyahu and the US president had reached understandings on Gaza’s second phase while listing Syria, Lebanon, and Iran among the files discussed, framing the meeting as part of a wider regional reconfiguration in which Syria is once again a subject of great-power bargaining.

Together, these outlets illustrate how the same meeting was read through sharply different prisms: deterrence and symbolism in Gulf-leaning media - skepticism and cost-benefit analysis in Qatar-based coverage - process-focused and Turkey-aware framing in Turkish outlets - and overt criticism from Palestinian-aligned platforms.

Nowhere was this divergence clearer than regarding Turkey.

For Kobi Michael, political analyst at the Institute for National Security Studies and the Misgav Institute, President Trump’s praise of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his openness to a Turkish role in regional stabilization were among the most troubling aspects of the meeting.

“What Trump eventually did was to flatter Netanyahu in a very grotesque manner, sometimes even embarrassing,” Michael told The Media Line. “But at the end of the day, this was camouflage. The real message was not the praise. The real message was about expectations,” he said.

Those expectations, Michael argued, center on Turkey.

“One of the main outcomes of this meeting is that Turkey, at the end of the day, will be part of the story. This is very important for President Trump,” he said. “Netanyahu may be willing to make compromises in this regard, but not because Israel wants Turkey there, certainly not in Gaza,” he added.

Michael was explicit that Israel views Turkish involvement in Gaza as strategically dangerous.

“Nobody in Israel believes that Turkey will dismantle Hamas or confront it militarily. On the contrary, there is deep concern that Turkish involvement could legitimize Hamas politically and allow it to survive in a different form,” he noted.

Reflecting on Syria, Michael described the US president’s approach as similarly problematic.

“President Trump accepts the presence of Turkey on Syrian soil and expects Israel to reach an understanding with both the Turks and the Syrian leadership,” he said. “He wants to see Syria eventually connected to the Abraham Accords, even if in a very gradual or symbolic way,” he added.

From Michael’s perspective, this places Israel in a bind, pressured by Washington to accommodate Ankara, while facing unresolved security threats on its northern border.

Dr. Tallha Abdulrazaq, Middle East geopolitical analyst, approached the same issue from a regional angle, one that helps explain why Arab media reacted so sharply.

“From a regional perspective, the meeting was interpreted as the formalization of a transactional, leader-centric security architecture,” Abdulrazaq told The Media Line, “one that increasingly prioritizes a US-Israel-Turkey axis over Arab-led diplomacy and peace initiatives deriving from the Arab League.”

He stressed that the concern is not merely Turkish power, but Arab exclusion.

“There is a growing perception that Trump is outsourcing regional stability to non-Arab powers, particularly Israel and Turkey,” he said. “This is viewed in many Arab capitals as marginalization of the Arab role in shaping their own region,” he explained.

Considering Syria specifically, Abdulrazaq noted deep unease.

“By framing Erdogan as the dominant actor in Syria and the one who ‘holds the key’ to its stability, Trump has signaled a willingness to prioritize Turkish security interests over the traditional Arab preference for a unified, sovereign Syria free from non-Arab military intervention,” he noted.

This fear, he added, cuts across ideological lines.

“Even Arab states that want influence in Syria, Saudi Arabia included, are uncomfortable with a precedent of managed sovereignty, where security is outsourced to Ankara while Arabs are relegated to economic reconstruction,” he said.

President Trump’s “hell to pay” warning to Hamas dominated headlines, but both analysts questioned its practicality.

Michael framed Gaza as the meeting’s central unresolved contradiction.

“Everybody understands that nobody will do the job for Israel,” he said. “No country is willing, and no country is capable, of fighting Hamas in order to dismantle it,” he added.

He warned that the likely outcome is a hollow transition.

“Israel will be forced to redeploy the IDF without achieving disarmament or demilitarization. This creates a reality where Hamas remains the effective ruler of Gaza, or at least part of it. That is a strategic failure,” he said.

Abdulrazaq focused on the regional consequences of this approach.

“Trump’s rhetoric represents a clear move away from mediation toward ultimatums,” he said. “Arab leaders fear this will trigger renewed violence in Gaza and political instability in their own countries, where publics already feel that Gaza has been abandoned,” he noted.

On Iran, the two analysts converged on importance but diverged on emphasis.

“Iran is the most crucial issue in the eyes of Prime Minister Netanyahu,” Michael said. “In this regard, he got what he wanted,” he added.

He described the American president’s posture as strengthening Israeli deterrence.

“Once Trump declares that Israel has the green light, this contributes to deterrence, not only vis-à-vis Iran, but across the region,” he said.

Abdulrazaq, however, emphasized Arab fears of escalation.

“Arab states share the objective of limiting Iranian power,” he said, “but they are increasingly worried about being caught in the crossfire of a US-backed Israeli strike.”

He explained that this is why many Gulf states pursue a dual-track policy: publicly supporting deterrence while privately maintaining de-escalation channels with Tehran.

President Trump’s admission that he does not fully agree with Netanyahu on the West Bank was widely noted, but not overinterpreted.

“This gives Netanyahu an excuse to rein in some settler violence,” Michael said. “But I do not expect any fundamental change in policy,” he added.

On the symbolic politics, the Israel Prize and the pardon, Michael was blunt.

“Trump created an atmosphere that feeds Netanyahu’s political base,” he said. “But I am not convinced this will lead to an actual pardon,” he added.

Abdulrazaq viewed these gestures through a regional lens.

“In the Arab world, these symbols reinforce the perception that personal loyalty and political survival now outweigh institutional diplomacy,” he said.

If the Mar-a-Lago meeting clarified anything, it was not consensus, but fault lines.

“It was a good meeting for Netanyahu,” Michael noted. “But there are no free meals. And Israel will have to pay a price,” he observed.

Abdulrazaq offered a broader warning.

“The region is entering a phase where power is negotiated through deals, not frameworks,” he said. “That may deliver short-term results, but it also produces long-term instability,” he concluded.