annashay 
On November 21, 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, charging them with alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity stemming from Israel’s military operations in Gaza. This unprecedented move – the first time the ICC has targeted leaders of a Western-aligned democracy – has sent shockwaves through the international community, spotlighting the court’s resolve to pursue justice despite significant geopolitical hurdles.
As of May 12, 2025, however, these warrants remain unenforced, reflecting the ICC’s limited enforcement power in a world where major players like the United States, Russia, China, and India refuse to recognize its jurisdiction. The decision has thrust the Middle East into a new phase of tension, with U.S. President Donald Trump’s unpredictable policies adding layers of complexity to an already volatile region.
The ICC, created in 2002 under the Rome Statute, aims to prosecute individuals for the gravest offenses – war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, and aggression – stepping in only when national courts fail to act, a principle known as complementarity. Yet, its authority is perpetually undermined by the non-participation of key global powers, a flaw exposed by past failures to apprehend figures like Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir or Russia’s Vladimir Putin.
The warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant have polarized the world: nations like Ireland, Belgium, and Jordan hail them as a triumph for accountability, while the U.S. and Israel decry them as an overreach. Trump, in particular, has responded with fury, branding the ICC’s actions “outrageous” and imposing sanctions on its officials, a move that underscores his broader disdain for multilateral institutions.
This legal drama unfolds against the backdrop of Trump’s enigmatic Middle East strategy, exemplified by his impending visit to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Gulf leaders, who once celebrated Trump’s first term for its economic deals and hard-line stance on Iran, now find themselves confounded by his intentions.
As Marc Lynch notes in Foreign Affairs, Trump’s trip could pursue multiple aims: securing a $100 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, encouraging Gulf investments in the U.S. economy, or even advancing personal financial interests through ties to Trump properties and cryptocurrencies. Yet, the visit’s true purpose remains elusive, with speculation ranging from economic manoeuvring to a pivotal decision on Iran – potentially tilting the region toward war or a nuclear agreement.
Trump’s policies, while echoing some of Biden’s approaches, are marked by a distinctive unpredictability. Gulf States, reliant on oil exports and stable shipping routes through the Red Sea and Suez Canal, are wary of his proposed tariffs, which could spark a global recession. His February 2025 suggestion to “take over” Gaza and displace its Palestinian population – a plan Lynch describes as horrifying to Arab leaders – has further muddied the waters, raising fears of regional destabilization.
Meanwhile, the Gulf’s evolving stance on Iran complicates matters. Once eager for confrontation, these states now prioritize stability, having pursued a Chinese-brokered rapprochement with Tehran after incidents like the 2019 attack on Saudi oil facilities revealed their vulnerability without assured U.S. support.
At the heart of this geopolitical tangle lies Trump’s fraught relationship with Netanyahu. During his first term, Trump was Israel’s unwavering ally, championing the Abraham Accords and withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal – moves that aligned with Netanyahu’s hawkish agenda. But recent developments have strained this bond. In May 2025, Trump fired National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, a key figure who had coordinated closely with Netanyahu on military options against Iran and an aggressive approach to Yemen’s Houthis. Lynch highlights this dismissal as emblematic of the administration’s dysfunction, leaving Gulf leaders uncertain whether it signals a policy shift or mere chaos. Allegations that Netanyahu manipulated U.S. policy through Waltz have fuelled perceptions that Trump is reevaluating his stance, distancing himself from an Israeli leader now facing international and domestic isolation.
The ICC’s warrants amplify Netanyahu’s predicament. Internationally, they have galvanized support for Palestinian statehood, with countries like France, Ireland, Spain, and Norway reaffirming their commitment to a two-state solution. Domestically, Netanyahu grapples with political fallout as Israel’s Gaza offensive – responsible for over 47,300 Palestinian deaths since October 2023, per local health authorities – draws global condemnation. The warrants, though symbolic without enforcement, underscore a growing consensus that accountability is overdue, further isolating Israel on the world stage.
Beyond Gaza, regional dynamics add further complexity. In Syria, Israel’s expanded incursions and bombing campaigns since the fall of Bashar al-Assad in December 2024 have alarmed Arab states, which cautiously back the new regime to stabilize the country. Lynch notes that Gulf leaders will likely press Trump for clarity on U.S. intentions in Syria, seeking alignment with their efforts to manage regional conflicts.
Meanwhile, Trump’s visit could shape the Gulf’s delicate balancing act with Iran, where leaders hope to avoid war but remain skeptical of U.S. reliability after limited responses to past attacks by Iranian proxies.
The Middle East stands at a crossroads, shaped by the ICC’s historic warrants, Trump’s erratic leadership, and the shifting priorities of regional powers. The interplay of international law, economic ambitions, and geopolitical rivalries – particularly over Iran and Palestinian statehood – creates a landscape as volatile as it is intricate. Trump’s Gulf visit could prove a turning point, either fostering a rare diplomatic breakthrough or plunging the region into deeper conflict. As the world watches, the stakes could not be higher, demanding a nuanced understanding of these events and their far-reaching consequences. This article delves into these developments, offering a comprehensive exploration of their implications for justice, stability, and the future of the Middle East.
At the end, we must question, Will the scales of justice tip towards righteousness or ruin? Will the mighty prevail unchecked, or will justice rise to claim its due?
