Trump Had To 'Choose' Between Israel And Qatar: What The NYT Missed
The Financial Times frames Trump's decision to side with Qatar over Israel as some geopolitical Sophie's Choice. What the FT omits is the financial landscape always dictating these 'choices'. While pro-Israel lobbying groups pour millions into US elections annually, Qatar—despite its smaller footprint—has been strategically cultivating influence, especially through significant investments and
lobbying efforts in Washington, D.C. (According to OpenSecrets.org data, Qatari interests spent over $20 million on lobbying in 2017 alone, a year critical to the very 'choice' the FT describes). So, was it really a choice between nations, or a calculation of immediate financial and strategic benefits? One might wonder how many 'tough geopolitical choices' simply dissolve into following the money
trail. The 'special relationship' with Israel seems to be conditional on a robust return on investment, doesn't it?