THE `most dangerous man in the world`, according to Noam Chomsky, is back in the White House. His first term in office proved him to be a self-centred, erratic, cunning, destructive and even criminal leader. However, he has been an effective servant of the corporate bosses and the security `deep state` of the US (led by the Pentagon, CIA and the FBI.) Together, they rule America in the name of democracy and free enterprise but, in reality, in pursuit of exclusive global hegemony and the maximisation of corporate profits. Trump`s political success represents the political degeneration of the US.

Many expect Trump to push for a deal with Putin on Ukraine which would prevent the expansion of Nato to the borders of Russia.

(Unlike Ukraine, Finland has been independent since the Russian revolution.) The deep state, however, is likely to resist any such peace initiative in conjunction with Nato and European allies.

Trump might try to placate the deep state and his allies by linking a deal with Putin on Ukraine with a loosening of Russia`s strategic ties with China. Putin, however, knows how Kissinger`s success in driving a wedge between Moscow and Beijing led to Moscow`s defeat in the Cold War.

He will never allow a repeat of this strategic disaster for Russia.

Trump`s efforts to cultivate Putin could also alienate Western Europe which supports Ukrainian independence within its present borders, for fear of being outflanked by Russia and China in the whole of Eurasia. Given Trump`s scepticism about Nato, he is unlikely to compensate Europe for such a strategic setback.

Accordingly, the question arises: will Trump break Nato or will Nato break Trump? During Trump`s first term, he treated China as an enemy to be contained. However, his policy of imposing punitive duties on Chinese imports and confronting it in East Asia and the Western Pacific are not likely to be feasible. If US exporters cannot import cheaper Chinese inputs for their export products, they will be priced out of foreign markets and American consumers will similarly have to pay higher prices if denied access to Chinese consumer goods. Similarly, Trump`s threats against de-dollarisation are likely to be unavailing. China has developed sufficient countervailing economic and military power and diplomatic influence to render this also an unprofitable option.China will not look for confrontation with the US but, according to Chinese economist Keyu Jin, the likely costs for the US of a policy of confrontation with China should give it pause. While many of the friends and allies of the US in the region fear the rise of China and would welcome the US as a counterweight, very few of them favour a policy of threats and sanctions towards China. Chas Freeman, a respected former US ambassador, says most of the smaller countries of the world wish to maximise their options and room for manoeuvre, not follow one or the other superpower. He says China understands this, but US `liberal democrats` do not, and US `securocrats` do not care to.

China is neither an aggressive nor a hegemony-seeking state. But it is a global economic power with vital economic interests spread all over the world, which it will secure, preferablywithout risking war. Many of these vital interests are located in Africa and the Muslim world and to a great extent are currently protected by the confidence the countries of Africa and the Muslim world repose in China.

If the US were to succeed in undermining this confidence, it would gain a very significant strategic advantage.

Under these circumstances, one might expect a pragmatic China to seek an accommodation with the US, instead of countering it. This would make sense for China except for the fact that it knows the US seeks exclusive global hegemony and will not countenance China as an equal strategic partner.

It won the Cold War against the Soviet Union and it is committed to winning the New Cold War against China. Accordingly, Chinese strategists realise they have little choice but to counter the anti-China policy of the US.Trump, like Biden, celebrates the genocide in Gaza, the setback to Hezbollah, and the presumed humiliation of Iran. He sees this as the victory of his beloved Israel but also of his Arab and Muslim ruling clients over their own people.

He rejects a two-state solution to the Palestine problem and will try to resurrect the Abraham Accords to permanently defeat the aspirations of the Arab and Muslim people. The latest developments in Syria confirm this US strategy, which is immediately aimed at discrediting Russia and Iran within the Arab world, but is ultimately aimed at discrediting China within the Muslim world. Beyond that, it represents the unfolding of a Western civilisational challenge to the Muslim world.

Likewise, Trump will have no interest in being balanced or `fair` in his handling of relations with India and Pakistan. He will continue his `Howdy Modi to Namaste Trump` relationship which represented a landmark strategic development in Indo-US relations. India is a de facto strategic ally of the US and participates in other US-led anti-China alliances.

The fact that India under Modi, according to its most respected political commentators, has become a `Muslim hating country` will not faze Trump unless American Muslims, including Pakistanis, can influence his political decisionmaking. His recent statements indicate that possibility.

While Trump personally admires Imran Khan, he is no friend of Pakistan. There is, nevertheless, speculation he may invite Imran Khan to his inauguration. But it is unclear if Trump will insist on his invitation being respected if Imran Khan`s jailers demur.

Finally, could Trump`s primitive political agenda ensure the end of the civilised world by totally reneging on the climate undertakings and responsibilities of the US as his cabinet appointments suggest? While this is still unclear, the failure of COP29 is a bad omen. The current term of Trump will likely determine whether or not the world enters the stage of irreversible climate heating which would generate secondary consequences that could terminate human civilisation long before climate would. • The writer is a former ambassador to the US, India and China, and head of UN missions in Iraq and Sudan.

ashrafjgazi @gmail.com