Combined portrait of Donald Trump’s Middle East advisor Massad Boulos ( L) and his Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.
By : Ya Libnan Editorial Board
The Middle East has long been a focal point of American foreign policy, a region where leadership requires deep expertise, diplomatic finesse, and unwavering strategic vision. However, recent developments surrounding President-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet appointments for Middle Eastern affairs raise serious concerns about the future of America’s influence in the region.
Trump’s selection of Steve Witkoff, a real estate mogul, as his Middle East envoy, and Massad Boulos, a businessman with ties to controversial figures, as his Middle East advisor, threatens to undermine decades of U.S. efforts to maintain stability and project strength in one of the world’s most volatile areas. Both appointments, marked by questionable qualifications and troubling connections, highlight a dangerous disregard for the complexities of Middle Eastern politics.
The Case of Steve Witkoff
Witkoff’s primary claim to relevance in the Middle East stems from his real estate dealings with Abu Dhabi investors. Beyond this, his experience in the region is virtually nonexistent. Even more alarming is Witkoff’s recent venture with Donald Trump into cryptocurrency through World Liberty Financial Inc. This venture has partnered with Tron, a crypto platform that financial experts and international authorities have linked to illicit activities, including transactions involving groups designated as terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
Tron’s founder, Justin Sun, has now joined the Trump-Witkoff partnership as an advisor, raising serious ethical and security concerns. Sun’s British Virgin Islands-registered platform has been flagged for facilitating crypto transfers associated with sanctioned entities. How can the United States credibly lead efforts to combat terrorism in the Middle East while its own envoy is entangled with a platform suspected of aiding terror financing?
Massad Boulos: A Troubling Choice
Massad Boulos’s appointment is equally contentious. A Lebanese-born businessman who left the country as a teenager and admits to having little recent involvement with Lebanon, Boulos has ties that directly contradict American interests. As a former representative of Michel Aoun, Hezbollah’s key ally in Lebanon, Boulos supported the 2006 alliance between Aoun and Hezbollah—an agreement that strengthened Iran’s grip on Lebanon. Under Aoun’s presidency, Lebanon’s economy collapsed, and the nation became a de facto colony of Iran.
Boulos’s close friendship with Suleiman Franjieh, Hezbollah’s current presidential candidate and a known ally of the Assad regime in Syria, further undermines his credibility. Recent remarks by Boulos urging Lebanese leaders not to rush the presidential election process have been interpreted by many as a veiled attempt to push for Franjieh’s candidacy, a move that would cement Hezbollah’s dominance in Lebanon. These associations cast doubt on Boulos’s ability to represent American values and interests in the region.
The Danger of Inexperience and Ethical Conflicts
The Middle East is one of the most politically intricate regions in the world, demanding leadership with an intimate understanding of its history, cultures, and power dynamics. Witkoff and Boulos—neither of whom have substantial experience in Middle Eastern affairs—are unfit to navigate these complexities. Instead, their appointments appear to be driven by personal connections and financial interests rather than merit or strategic foresight.
Beyond their lack of expertise, the ethical concerns surrounding these figures are glaring. World Liberty Financial Inc.’s partnership with Tron raises questions about conflicts of interest and national security risks. Similarly, Boulos’s ties to Hezbollah’s allies suggest a troubling willingness to tolerate, if not outright support, entities that the United States has designated as terrorist organizations.
The Implications for American Leadership
If these appointments are allowed to stand, the United States risks eroding its leadership position in the Middle East. Already facing stiff competition from regional powers like Iran, Turkey, and Russia, as well as a rising China, America cannot afford to project weakness or inconsistency. Entrusting key Middle Eastern roles to individuals with dubious qualifications and connections will only embolden America’s adversaries and alienate its allies.
The stakes could not be higher. The Middle East remains a critical theater for global security, energy markets, and counterterrorism. Any missteps in the region have the potential to reverberate worldwide, undermining not just regional stability but also America’s credibility on the global stage.
A Call to Action
Americans must demand accountability and transparency in these appointments. Leadership roles in the Middle East require individuals with proven expertise, integrity, and a commitment to advancing American interests. Anything less is a disservice to the nation and a betrayal of the principles that have long guided U.S. foreign policy.
It is time for Americans to recognize the gravity of this moment and to hold their leaders to a higher standard. The future of U.S. influence in the Middle East—and by extension, the world—depends on it.