I have covered several administrations at the White House, and almost all presidents were professional politicians — former governors or legislators. President Trump is a different case. He is a businessman first. Behind every president there are businessmen who fund campaigns and wield enormous influence, but Trump also funded himself. Therefore, when he looks at the Middle East, he sees it within the context of commercial and economic interests that benefit both countries.

He looks at Europe as a commercial arrangement that is no longer very viable from his point of view. The Middle East possesses enormous potential, but the fundamental problem is instability. Trump is reshaping the geopolitical system and the world order. The goal is to completely reshape the political geography of the Middle East — one of the President’s objectives is to expand the “Abraham Accords” first to Saudi Arabia, then Lebanon, and beyond.

The primary focus of America in the region is enhancing a positive American presence — through economic cooperation. This is what we see with the Saudis, the Emiratis, the Iraqis, and Kurdistan. What will happen next in Gaza will follow the same pattern. The approach goes well beyond the “Deal of the Century” toward comprehensive security and economic arrangements, but it is conditional on removing the Iranian obstacle.

Iran brought a great deal of instability. The Iranian leadership, from Washington’s point of view, is religiously fanatical. Secretary Rubio always repeated that “Iran is evil” because it follows a theology that sows division and sees the West and Israel as the greatest enemy.

The problem with Iran consists of three files: first, proxies — the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Hamas. Second, the enrichment of nuclear uranium, not for civilian use, but for military use. From the reports I review and press briefings at the Pentagon, they now have missile capability that reaches Rome, London, Paris, and Berlin — and soon also the United States.

Trump has an approach grounded in mutual benefit. It is a diplomatic approach, but it is based on the principle of “give and take.” He does not separate strategic strength from economic prosperity. He wants to apply military pressure and entice economically, to force Tehran to choose. But most likely, the confrontation with Iran will continue because the differences are too many. What we will most likely see are more precise strikes in the near future — after which they will try to find some kind of agreement. Nothing can be fully accomplished unless there is a regime change, or at least a government in Iran that minds its own business.

Previous American presidents were not able to do it. Obama made that nuclear deal and thought everything was fine. He did not want to get involved because he knew that dealing with the Iranian leadership was very difficult — their culture and mentality are completely different from any Western mentality, and even from many Middle Eastern cultures.

I believe the presidency does not have an easy way out. Dealing with the Iranians is literally exhausting. They are dangerous, and they have Russia and China behind them. The negotiations will not be easy at all. The Chinese will be a party to them, and there is also Russian intelligence involved. Trump is looking for the support of President Xi Jinping in concluding any potential arrangement with Iran. Most likely, if he does not get the support of the Chinese, the confrontation will flare up again.

So everything is still on the table, but there is no clear end in sight. The military option seems most appropriate at the current moment, but we must also see the state of instability this has brought to the Western world.

The President views the relationship with allies within the context of commercial and economic interests that benefit both countries. In the framework of the Moroccan-American partnership under this administration, it is important to enhance the commercial partnership alongside military and security cooperation. The partnership should not be limited to the acquisition of military equipment from Washington, but should also include mutual investment in the United States, in a manner that serves the prosperity of both nations.

For the United States of America, Morocco is a principal center and a strategic gateway to Europe and Africa. Its unique position between the two continents makes it an ideal platform for trilateral partnerships that serve investment, trade, and the economy, connecting continents in a way that achieves mutual interests. The lesson is clear: the relationship with Washington in the Trump era is anchored in the gateway of mutual prosperity. Mutual investment is what reinforces the principle of “America First” and transforms the historic strategic ally into an indispensable partner in the President’s vision.

His Majesty possesses wisdom and a far-sighted vision regarding what enhances the commercial and strategic relationship with the United States. But the most important role that Morocco can play is to be a “bridge.” Morocco has a good relationship with Italy and the Mediterranean countries, and it can also be a bridge between the Islamic world and the Christian world, because it has religious diversity and coexistence.

In the thorny files of the Middle East — look at Israel, it is a war of religions with Gaza, with Iran. Morocco, since it stands in a position of constructive neutrality, can step forward to build a stronger relationship between America and the Middle East, and to bring ideas, proposals, and initiatives. This is exactly what President Trump will value.

If Morocco plays this role, it will elevate from a historic strategic ally to a “partner of mutual interest” in the President’s strategic vision. Morocco is qualified for this role by virtue of its distinguished position, its relations, and its deeply rooted experience in coexistence. An honest broker who has initiatives to solve the crises of the region — that is what this administration values above all.