Introduction

The controversy sparked by the statements of Mike Huckabee, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, along with the parallel debate within the United States regarding the limits of presidential authority in relation to the Supreme Court of the United States, can only be understood as two manifestations of a broader political trajectory that is redefining the relationship between doctrine and decision-making, and between popular mandate and constitutional constraint.

This paper emerges within an exceptionally sensitive regional context, where prospects for de-escalation intersect with fears of expansion, and where peace trajectories collide with the rise of religious nationalist currents within the United States. Accordingly, the central question this paper seeks to unpack does not revolve around the veracity of a particular statement per se, but rather whether that statement reflects a deeper transformation in the architecture of American political thinking, or whether it constitutes a situational mobilization tool within broader electoral calculations.

Building on this premise, the paper examines five interrelated axes: the ideological dimension of political discourse; the challenge of institutional discipline; the impact of populism in reshaping foreign policy; the position of the far right within the American electoral equation; and, finally, the implications of all these dynamics for the concepts of sovereignty and stability in the Arab region. The objective is to provide a balanced and impartial analysis that navigates between the declared text and the underlying structure, between rhetorical noise and strategic trajectories.

Chapter One: Ideologized Diplomacy and the Limits of Religious Discourse in U.S. Foreign Policy

The statements made by the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, regarding what he described as Israel’s “biblical right” to geographic expansion have reignited a complex debate—one that goes beyond media controversy to raise deeper questions about the intellectual currents shaping U.S. decision-making circles and the boundaries between religious doctrine and diplomatic practice.

Invoking a “biblical right” in a contemporary political context can be understood as reintroducing a theological frame into a field that is presumed to be governed by international law and the reference points of the modern international order. The sensitivity of these remarks therefore stems not only from their religious content, but also—crucially—from the institutional representational position of the person who voiced them.

First: Between a Personal Position and an Institutional Stance

The first dilemma lies in determining whether these statements reflect a personal conviction rooted in a religious–ideological background, or whether they constitute an implicit expression of an influential current within the U.S. administration.

This ambiguity has been compounded by the absence of a definitive official clarification from Washington, while press reports—including Politico—have pointed to attempts within the administration to contain the fallout from the remarks. Such institutional vagueness opens the door to two parallel interpretations: either the statement represents an individual lapse within a diplomatic discourse that was expected to remain disciplined, or it reflects an intellectual trend within the American right that views Israel as an extension of a religious–political doctrine that transcends conventional geopolitical considerations.

Second: The Evangelical Right as an Influential Actor in Foreign Policy

Huckabee’s statements cannot be separated from his background as one of the most prominent figures of the evangelical Christian right in the United States—an orientation that views Israel through a doctrinal lens tied to theological interpretations of Old Testament texts.

The significance of this dimension lies in the fact that the evangelical right constitutes an influential electoral base within the Republican Party, and has played a notable role in supporting prior decisions—such as the relocation of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem during Donald Trump’s administration. Accordingly, the central question concerns the extent to which this theological worldview has penetrated the approach of certain U.S. decision-making circles toward the Israeli file.

Third: Timing and Its Geopolitical Implications

These statements come at an exceptionally sensitive regional moment, where trajectories of war, normalization, and the re-positioning of regional powers intersect, alongside attempts to revive stalled negotiating frameworks.

In this context, introducing the notion of a “biblical right” into official discourse—even indirectly—carries three possible implications: reframing the conflict’s reference point from a legal–political one to a religious identity-based one; undermining any negotiation foundation premised on the two-state solution; and deepening polarization across regional and international environments.

Despite the severity of the remarks, however, treating them as evidence of a profound shift in U.S. policy requires analytical caution.

Historically, U.S. foreign policy has rested on a blend of strategic pragmatism and political bias in favor of Israel; yet, at least at the official level, it has largely avoided adopting religious reference points when describing borders and sovereignty. From this angle, the issue may not amount to a fully formed institutional shift so much as an expression of the rising influence of ideological discourse within certain circles—one that may be testing the boundaries of what is politically acceptable without necessarily crystallizing into an adopted policy.

Fourth: The Impact on the United States’ Image

At the international level, these statements raise questions about the United States’ standing as a potential mediator in any future negotiating track. When the conflict is redefined through the logic of a “religious promise,” the legal foundations underpinning the international order begin to erode, and the conflict is reproduced in existential terms that are difficult to contain diplomatically. Moreover, religious rhetoric in an already combustible geopolitical context may reinforce extremist narratives on the opposing side, further intensifying cycles of polarization.

What This Chapter Concludes

The U.S. ambassador’s remarks cannot be reduced to a mere diplomatic slip—nor can it be asserted with certainty that they reflect a complete official shift in the American doctrine toward the conflict. Their danger, however, lies in what they reveal: a growing overlap between religious ideology and certain centers of political influence at a moment of acute regional fragility. Accordingly, assessing these statements requires reading them both within their personal ideological context and within their place in the broader dynamics of power inside the U.S. administration.

Chapter Two: The Evangelical Right, Religious Instrumentalization, and the Limits of Influence on American Decision-Making

The shock generated by the ambassador’s remarks lay in the geographic scope that was implicitly not excluded when referring to an “expanded Israel”—a scope that, at least theoretically, intersects with the territories of sovereign states such as Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and parts of Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

The core dilemma here lies not only in the hypothesis of expansion itself, but also in the nature of the reference invoked to justify its possibility: a biblical-theological framework introduced into a context presumed to be governed by modern international law, the principle of state sovereignty, and internationally recognized borders.

 

First: Between Religious Rhetoric and Political Adoption

It is essential to distinguish carefully between two levels: mobilizational discourse rooted in ideological conviction, and foreign policy as the product of a complex institutional process.

A statement issued by an ambassador does not automatically translate into state doctrine. Since 2016, the United States has experienced acute internal polarization among right-wing, left-wing, populist, and even anti-establishment currents. This polarization has influenced political language, including the renewed use of religious symbolism in the public sphere.

Within this context, certain statements may be better understood as extensions of mobilizing rhetoric aimed at a specific electoral base, rather than as declarations of a comprehensive strategic transformation.

Second: The Reagan Legacy and the Revival of Value-Based Language

The reintroduction of religious language into American politics is not a novel phenomenon. During the presidency of Ronald Reagan, Christian value-based rhetoric was deployed in the context of the Cold War to confront communism—functioning primarily as a cultural and moral mobilization tool rather than as theology governing state policy.

Today, references to “traditional Christian values” are once again invoked, this time in response to progressive liberal currents within American society, particularly on issues such as abortion, gender identity, and family definitions. In this sense, religion often operates as a symbolic framework for political mobilization rather than as a binding doctrinal foundation for policy decisions.

Third: Christian Zionism and Divergent Approaches

It is equally important to unpack the term “evangelical” and avoid attributing to it uniform meaning. Within American Protestantism exist multiple currents, including what is known as Christian Zionism—a movement that views the establishment of the State of Israel as part of a religious narrative connected to eschatological interpretations.

However, this current does not represent all Christians, nor even all Protestants. Christians in the Middle East—including Palestinian Christians—have rejected linking the Gospel to any expansionist or exclusionary project, arguing that sacred texts cannot be invoked to justify the negation of other peoples’ rights.

Opposition to such interpretations is not limited to Christian circles. Certain religious Jewish currents—such as Neturei Karta—oppose, in principle, the establishment of the State of Israel prior to what they consider a divinely ordained fulfillment, and reject the use of biblical texts to legitimize contemporary sovereign political claims.

This internal plurality underscores that the religious landscape itself is not monolithic, and that speaking of an “official American religious adoption” remains an oversimplification of a far more complex reality.

Fourth: Nationalist Right vs. Evangelical Right

Paradoxically, the American right is not homogeneous in its view of Israel. While the evangelical right adopts a supportive stance driven largely by doctrinal motivations, currents within the populist nationalist right tend to embrace more isolationist inclinations, arguing that priority should be given to domestic American interests rather than unconditional engagement in external conflicts.

Accordingly, speaking of an absolute evangelical influence over American decision-making requires analytical caution. Decision-making centers in the United States operate within a web of institutional balances involving the “deep state” apparatus, Congress, public opinion, influential lobbying groups, and broader strategic calculations.

Fifth: The Limits of Influence on Future Policies

The most significant question concerns the extent to which such rhetoric could translate into actionable policy.

To date, there are no official indicators that Washington has adopted an expansionist vision grounded in religious reference. Any approach of this kind would confront international legal constraints, regional alliance structures, and broader stability considerations.

The risk, however, lies at a different level: once religious concepts are reintroduced into international political discourse—even rhetorically—the conflict risks being reframed in identity-based, existential terms that are difficult to contain within conventional conflict-resolution mechanisms.

What This Chapter Concludes

The ambassador’s statements cannot be divorced from the broader intellectual struggle within the United States, nor from the rising prominence of religious discourse in the public sphere since 2016. Yet transforming such discourse into official policy remains contingent upon complex institutional balances.

A careful reading therefore requires distinguishing between the symbolic influence of the evangelical current and its actual capacity to reshape American strategic doctrine. What has occurred may reflect the intensification of an ideological tone—but, at least for now, it does not amount to a profound structural shift in U.S. decision-making.

Chapter Three: Between Doctrinal Rhetoric and Uneasy Pragmatism – Did Huckabee Embarrass Washington or Voice Its Deeper Current?

The central question arises as to whether Mike Huckabee’s statement placed the U.S. administration in a diplomatic predicament, or whether it merely articulated—bluntly and unapologetically—a deeply rooted current within the American political structure. The distinction between a “misstep” and a “deliberate disclosure” may appear subtle, yet it is decisive in assessing the situation.

First: The Problem of Discipline within the American Decision-Making Machinery

Had Huckabee’s remarks constituted an individual slip or a departure from an established line, it would have been relatively straightforward for the U.S. Department of State or the White House to issue a clear correction, an interpretative clarification, or at least a diplomatic softening that confined the statement to a limited context. Yet what followed did not go beyond brief and cautious language—suggesting neither a genuine rupture with the substance of the remarks nor a clear desire to distance the administration from them.

A deeper observation emerges here: since 2016, with the rise of Donald Trump, the American foreign policy apparatus has increasingly exhibited a pattern of what might be described as “undisciplined multi-vocality,” where contradictory statements coexist without evident institutional embarrassment. Trump himself, on multiple occasions, spoke of the need to expand Israel’s geographic scope—at one point describing it as “the size of a pin”—while in other forums emphasizing “regional peace” and “de-escalation.”

This coexistence of expansionist rhetoric and conciliatory language can only be understood either as a form of fluctuating pragmatism or as a policy approach premised on managing contradiction rather than resolving it.

Second: Loyalty Versus Professionalism – A Shift in Appointment Philosophy

It is notable that several envoys appointed in recent years have not emerged from the traditional diplomatic school characterized by cumulative expertise in Middle Eastern affairs. Instead, they are sometimes perceived as ideological or loyalty-based appointments.

This shift has implications for the tone and nature of American discourse: moving from a carefully calibrated institutional voice to a more mobilizational rhetoric in which personal conviction and official messaging intersect.

In this context, Huckabee does not appear as an exception but rather as part of a broader trajectory that views the Middle East not merely as a file to be managed, but as an arena for recalibrating regional balances. Previous remarks by American officials regarding the need to “redraw maps” or to move beyond the legacy of the Sykes-Picot Agreement suggest the presence of a conceptual current willing to reconsider the regional order as a whole, rather than confining itself to the boundaries of a single conflict.

Third: The Electoral Dimension – Appeasing the Core Base

From another angle, Huckabee’s remarks cannot be separated from the electoral calculus. The conservative evangelical current—numbering in the tens of millions within the United States—constitutes a core electoral pillar for Donald Trump. Numerous estimates indicate that a significant majority of this bloc supported him in both of his presidential campaigns. Appointing a figure with a clearly articulated doctrinal alignment toward Israel to a sensitive diplomatic post may therefore be read less as a sudden strategic shift and more as a reassurance signal directed at that base.

The dilemma, however, lies in the fusion of the doctrinal with the political. When religious narratives about a “promised geography” or a “historic right” are reproduced within official discourse, the conflict acquires an existential character that transcends international law and weakens frameworks grounded in state sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Fourth: Escalatory Rhetoric and the Fueling of Polarization

Another dimension—no less serious—concerns the injection of religiously charged rhetoric into an already volatile regional environment. In the aftermath of a devastating war in Gaza and amid fragility across several Arab arenas, such discourse risks catalyzing a counter-mobilization on the opposing side. History suggests that extremism feeds upon its mirror image; once religious polarization enters the political arena, it becomes cross-border fuel.

In other words, statements of this nature may be used—intentionally or otherwise—as a provocation within the Middle Eastern public sphere, enabling radical actors to position themselves as defenders of identity against a perceived “expansionist project.” The statement thus becomes part of a reciprocal mobilization equation, extending beyond the individual speaker to networks of interpretation and political instrumentalization.

Fifth: A Diplomatic Misstep or a Dual Strategy?

In light of the above, it is difficult to assert that Huckabee “embarrassed” the U.S. administration in the classical sense. More plausibly, the remarks fall within a calculated margin of constructive ambiguity: rhetoric that satisfies a conservative domestic audience without immediately translating into declared executive policy. The administration neither condemned the statement nor elevated it to the status of official doctrine.

This may be described as a strategy of “testing through declaration”: introducing an idea into the public sphere, measuring regional and international reactions, and then determining its viability as a practical course of action. In this sense, the statement may not represent a liability but rather a probing instrument—or even a pressure card—within broader strategic balances that encompass relations with Europe, the Ukraine file, and the redefinition of power roles in the Middle East.

What This Chapter Concludes

Accordingly, Huckabee’s remarks should not be reduced to their personal or religious dimensions. They must be situated within a broader pattern of shifts in American political discourse: declining institutional discipline, the rise of ideological considerations, the mobilization of electoral constituencies, and the reintroduction of religion during moments of geopolitical polarization.

Between “misstep” and “strategy,” one constant remains: such rhetoric reshapes the symbolic terrain of the conflict, transforming geography into a matter of belief and politics into an arena of competing existential narratives—rather than merely a negotiation over borders.

Chapter Four: Is Trump Moving Toward an Authoritarian Centrality Wrapped in Populism?

When the highest judicial authority in the United States rules that an executive decision is impermissible, and the president responds by describing the Court’s ruling itself as “ridiculous,” the scene reflects a direct friction between two powers that are constitutionally designed to balance and complement one another.

First: A Clash of Powers or a Redefinition of Them?

The Court’s decision regarding tariffs—rejecting the imposition of duties on European partners outside established legal frameworks—signals adherence to the institutional architecture that regulates the separation and balance of powers. Yet the president’s dismissive characterization of the ruling cannot be detached from a broader pattern of redefining the relationship between the presidency and oversight institutions.

In this light, the matter transcends a mere disagreement over trade policy; it becomes a test of the concept of “executive legitimacy.” Does the executive branch derive its authority from a broad electoral mandate that permits it to override traditional constraints? Or is that mandate itself constitutionally bounded, regardless of popular support?

The risk lies not only in the decision, but in the language surrounding it. When rhetoric shifts toward delegitimizing the judiciary, it theoretically paves the way for the notion that political will can supersede constitutional safeguards.

Second: Noise as a Governing Tool

A careful reading of the broader scene suggests that the noise is not incidental. Raising multiple contentious issues simultaneously—from trade to immigration, from religion to geopolitics—creates a state of continuous mobilization that keeps the electoral base in a sustained emotional state of alertness.

This strategy operates on a simple principle: as controversy intensifies, gray zones shrink, and political debate hardens into binary alignment.

The challenge, however, emerges when religion shifts from being a moral reference point to becoming a political mobilization instrument. When geography is framed as a theological promise, or when international policies are depicted as preludes to cosmic destiny, debate moves from the realm of interests to the domain of absolute belief.

Third: Personal Faith and the Limits of Public Office

Returning to Mike Huckabee’s profile, it becomes evident—from his multiple interviews, including those with Tucker Carlson—that he does not conceal his deeply held theological interpretation of political history in the region. His earlier letter to Donald Trump, in which he invoked the idea of “entering history through the gate of establishing God’s kingdom,” reflects a worldview that extends beyond day-to-day politics into an eschatological horizon associated with the battle of Armageddon.

Yet personal faith, however deeply rooted, remains—within democratic systems—formally distinct from the obligations of public office. The dilemma arises when doctrinal conviction intersects with diplomatic representation, blurring the boundary between personal belief and official policy.

Notably, the U.S. administration did not issue an explicit condemnation of Huckabee’s remarks. However, according to reporting by Politico, it reportedly engaged in phone calls aimed at containing the fallout and reassuring several Arab states that the statements did not signify an official policy shift. This behavior reflects a calculated duality: calming external partners without confronting a supportive domestic audience.

Fourth: Regional Reactions and the Balance of Messaging

The joint statement issued by fourteen Arab and Islamic countries—including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey—underscored that such propositions threaten regional stability and contradict the “de-escalation” discourse that Washington itself promotes.

This coordinated response reflects an awareness that rhetorical shifts, even if not formalized into policy, carry symbolic weight. In geopolitically fragile environments, symbolic reframing can generate tangible consequences. The message conveyed by the joint statement was therefore not merely reactive; it was preventive—asserting that sovereignty and territorial integrity remain non-negotiable foundations of the regional order.

Fifth: Toward an Authoritarian Centrality?

The deeper question remains: is Trump pursuing authoritarian rule in the classical sense? Such a description may be exaggerated. Yet observable indicators suggest a tendency toward expanded executive centrality—one that relies heavily on popular mandate while downplaying institutional constraints when they conflict with political agendas.

The fundamental distinction between “full authoritarianism” and “populist centralization” lies in method. The latter does not abolish institutions outright; rather, it gradually weakens them through rhetoric, subjects them to loyalty tests, and reinterprets their limits. In this framework, clashes with the judiciary, the instrumentalization of religion, and the management of external contradictions appear not as isolated episodes, but as components of a broader pattern.

What This Chapter Concludes

What is unfolding cannot be reduced to an unguarded remark or a contested judicial ruling. It signals a recalibration of the relationship between power and legitimacy, between politics and doctrine, and between the state and its institutions.

The question thus shifts from: Did Huckabee entangle the administration? to: To what extent has the line separating personal conviction from official policy—and popular mandate from constitutional constraint—become open to reinterpretation?

At this intersection lies the crux of the matter, where American domestic dynamics converge with the stability and sovereignty concerns of the broader region.

Conclusion

A careful reading reveals that what initially appeared as rhetorical shock is in fact situated within a broader reconfiguration of American politics at the intersection of three forces: the rise of a nationalist religious right, the erosion of trust in traditional institutions, and the intensification of polarization as an electoral mobilization tool. Controversial statements operate within a domestic environment that provides them with a receptive audience, while their repercussions reverberate internationally.

Yet the regional counterpart is no longer as passive as in previous phases. Joint statements and coordinated Arab diplomatic engagement reflect an advanced awareness of the risks inherent in undermining sovereignty or reopening geopolitical questions under doctrinal banners. A delicate equilibrium thus emerges between a discourse testing boundary and a region signaling that its boundaries are not subject to redefinition.

Ultimately, it would be premature to conclude that the far right represents the inevitable destiny of American politics. At the same time, its growing influence on public discourse cannot be underestimated. The trajectory of this current will depend on how American society navigates its economic and social challenges, and on the capacity of its institutions to safeguard the balance between popular mandate and constitutional restraint.

Between doctrine and pragmatism, between electoral noise and the calculations of the state apparatus, the Arab region is called upon to read transformations strategically rather than reactively—to build responses grounded in structural awareness of shifting dynamics, rather than in momentary reactions to even the loudest of statements.

 

Issued by the Jordanian Masarat for Development and Progress
25 February 2026