“A lot of people out there feel the problem with the world is too much American power. I think they will soon discover it’s too little American power that they will miss when we’re gone. Fortunately, the U.S. is not gone yet, but Trump has threatened to have a much more minimalist foreign policy.”
In an exclusive interview with WEEKLY BIZ on Dec. 16, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, a three-time Pulitzer Prize winner and one of the world’s most influential commentators, painted a sobering picture of the global order under the upcoming second Trump administration.
He expressed deep concern over the possible ripple effects of America’s retreat from global affairs under Trump’s leadership, particularly in the Middle East. Regarding the strained U.S.-China relationship, he remarked, “The U.S. needs more Elon Musks to upgrade advanced manufacturing, and China needs more Taylor Swifts to boost domestic consumption.” The conversation ranged from tensions in the Middle East to the fragile state of U.S.-China trade ties and South Korea’s ongoing political instability. “It’s hard to understand why a country that has achieved such remarkable economic growth remains so politically unstable,” he said.
Oil: The root cause of Arab Spring’s failure
The Middle East has not seen democracy properly take root after the Arab Spring in 2011. Why is that?
“If I were to cite one reason, it’s oil. The fact that so many states in the Middle East have huge amounts of oil means that a lot of the political competition revolves around who gets to capture the oil. Once someone captures it, they can stay in power for a long time, whether a monarchy or an autocracy. That’s the first reason.”
What are the other reasons?
“Another reason is the long legacy of an inability to overcome the kinship problem. These highly diverse societies were put inside borders by colonial powers a century ago. So, only countries that can find a way to coexist with so many diverse elements—Shiites, Sunnis, Druze, Kurds, and Christians—are able to survive. Lebanon was able to do that for a long while, but it couldn’t. Syria was able to do that under the Iron Fist of the Assad family, but then it couldn’t. Iraq was able to do that under the Iron Fist of Saddam Hussein, and then it couldn’t. What we’re seeing is the kind of disintegration that comes when you neither have an iron fist at the top nor a consensus power-sharing agreement at the bottom.”
Shifting landscape of the Middle East after the Israel-Hamas war
How is the war between Israel and Hamas changing the geography of the Middle East?
“Hamas’ savage attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and Israel’s crushing response have devastated Gaza, leaving its future unclear. Hamas has effectively been dismantled, but the Israeli government has yet to decide what will take its place. This has created a significant power vacuum, now partially filled by remnants of Hamas in some areas and the Israeli military in others. Where this situation leads is anyone’s guess.”
What is your outlook on the future of the Middle East?
“The future remains uncertain. Key steps, such as the release of Israeli hostages, a ceasefire, and potential new elections in Israel, are prerequisites for clarity. After that, Israel will need to decide how to govern Gaza. Will it administer Gaza directly, seek international partners, involve the Palestinian Authority from the West Bank, or even annex the territory as some far-right factions propose? These questions remain unanswered.”
Israel recently conducted strikes in Syria, which some interpret as an attempt to expand its regional influence. What’s your take?
“I don’t see it that way. The collapse of the Syrian government and army left a vacuum filled by a rebel coalition with an Islamist background. Amid this chaos, remnants of the Assad regime’s long-range weapons still linger. Israel’s strikes are aimed at neutralizing these weapons, not expanding its influence.
To put it into perspective, imagine if North Korea collapsed—South Korea would be deeply concerned about loose weapons and who might take over.”
What’s your prediction for Syria’s future?
“I’m neither optimistic nor pessimistic. There are many unknowns, such as the true nature of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). While they originate from an al-Qaeda offshoot, they’ve reportedly acted with surprising restraint, respecting minorities and avoiding massacres. That said, rebuilding Syria after 13 years of civil war is a monumental challenge. Outside powers like Turkey, Sunni Arab states, Israel, and Iran all have vested interests, further complicating the process.
Syria has historically been the keystone of the Middle East. If it can stabilize, it would benefit not only Syria but also neighboring countries like Lebanon and Iraq, and most importantly, the millions of Syrian refugees displaced over the past decade.”
U.S. diplomacy and Trump’s vision
What role should the U.S. play in the Middle East, especially given Trump’s stance that “it’s not our fight”?
“The U.S. needs a very forward leaning approach. This is a pivotal moment with great risks but also significant opportunities. If Syria can be set on a path toward pluralistic democracy, it could stabilize Lebanon, bolster democratic forces in Iraq, and put Iran on the defensive, potentially sparking internal changes there.
However, achieving this will be extremely difficult. Without intensive U.S. involvement, the region could spiral further into chaos, threatening key allies like Jordan, destabilizing Israel, driving refugee crises, and strengthening Iran—all of which undermine U.S. interests.”
In contrast, Trump’s attitude towards the war in Ukraine seems more hands-on. Why is that?
“Trump likely feels more compelled to address Ukraine because it directly impacts NATO allies and involves massive financial costs. He’d prefer to sideline the issue but finds it harder to avoid due to its implications.
The core problem is that Trump seeks peace, while Putin seeks victory. Putin can’t simply declare an end after years of conflict, hundreds of thousands of casualties, and immense economic strain. He needs a decisive outcome, whereas Trump would settle for a ceasefire. This fundamental difference will challenge Trump when he returns to office.”
In a recent NYT column, you described being a U.S. Secretary of State as “the worst future dream for your children.” Why?
“I compared Anthony Blinken’s challenges to those faced by Henry Kissinger in 1973. After the Yom Kippur War, Kissinger needed only three phone calls—to the leaders of Syria, Egypt, and Israel—to set the stage for peace. His diplomacy was straightforward, akin to playing tic-tac-toe, because he dealt with strong nations and a strong America.
Blinken’s reality is far more complex. In Gaza, he must navigate military Hamas, political Hamas, and Islamic Jihad. In Lebanon, it’s Hezbollah versus the Lebanese government. It’s like solving a Rubik’s Cube with no clear solutions because he’s dealing with weak nations and a weaker America. Managing weakness is always harder than managing strength.”
Does the U.S. seem to evaluate its alliances primarily through economic interests? This has led to concerns in South Korea about the potential withdrawal of American troops.
“I hope that doesn’t happen. Last time (during Trump’s first term), he made such threats but never acted on them. This time, I see maintaining the U.S. presence in S. Korea as the default option, though it’s hard to predict. The relationship between the U.S. and S. Korea has been mutually beneficial for over 70 years. I’d be surprised if that changed. However, I’m not close to Trump and don’t have insight into his thoughts.”
Globalization in Flux: Navigating U.S.-China Tensions
How do you predict free trade and globalization will evolve in the Trump era?
“Trump’s victory was largely due to highlighting inflation and immigration as major issues, both of which Americans deeply worry about. However, tariffs essentially function as sales taxes and contribute to inflation. I believe many of Trump’s tariff-related threats are meant as negotiation tactics rather than genuine intentions to impose them. While it’s unclear what he’ll ultimately do, I expect the U.S. to negotiate trade deals with China, Mexico, and Canada, rather than dramatically increasing tariffs. This approach aligns with his strategic use of leverage.”
If high-tariff threats are just negotiation tactics, do you think U.S.-China tensions could ease?
“I’m not entirely sure. However, the U.S. and China have not decoupled yet; their trade volume still amounts to around $600 billion. I don’t believe the world is de-globalizing due to U.S.-China tensions. Instead, I see it as ‘re-globalizing.’ Many products that were once manufactured in China are now coming from countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, and even S. Korea. I expect this trend to grow stronger.”
Still, the U.S. continues to pursue various hardline policies against China. What are your thoughts on this approach?
“I believe that over the past five years, especially since COVID-19, China has made significant advancements in cutting-edge manufacturing sectors such as electric vehicles and robotics. The China that Trump will face in negotiations is not the China of eight years ago. It is now a much stronger manufacturing powerhouse, accounting for nearly half of global manufacturing output and becoming an even more formidable competitor.”
How do you evaluate the Chinese economy?
“China today is like a bodybuilder with a giant upper body of advanced manufacturing, while its lower body, its consumption muscles, have completely atrophied. Many of its state and local, provincial, and local governments are bankrupt or close to it because they can no longer sell land to raise capital. As a result, we see a highly bifurcated Chinese economy today: a giant, more powerful than ever export engine, alongside a weak, frail domestic spending engine. So, we [the U.S.] have to find a way to rebalance our relationship with China, and China needs to rebalance its relationship with itself and the world. My shorthand for this is that we need more Elon Musk, meaning we need to upgrade our industrial advanced manufacturing. And China needs more Taylor Swift—it needs more sources of domestic consumption.”
Irreversible Green Shift
You emphasized the need to prepare for the climate crisis in your book Hot, Flat, and Crowded. Donald Trump appears indifferent to addressing the climate crisis. What are your thoughts on this?
“Well, Mother Nature, she’s just chemistry, biology, and physics, and that’s all she is. She’s going to do whatever chemistry, biology, and physics dictate. And to put it in American baseball terms, she always bats last, and she always bats 1000, so whatever Donald Trump thinks about the climate doesn’t really matter. It’s what Mother Nature does. And Mother Nature will do whatever chemistry, biology, and physics dictate. It could be that we will stay on the course we’re on, with increasingly disruptive and destructive weather and climate events, and Trump will have to come to a different conclusion. But his views are not going to influence Mother Nature, because she’s not listening.”
There are concerns that Trump’s presidency might disrupt the green economy in the United States.
“If you look at the states in the United States that have been stalled [in the green economy], they’re all Republican states, starting with Texas. So when Trump comes along and says, ‘I don’t believe in any of that stuff. We’re going to go back to drill, baby drill.’ He’s actually talking to Republicans now more than Democrats. And so I think a lot of this now is embedded, and it’s been reinforced by money that the Biden administration directed toward more clean technology, and the fact that so many car companies have invested now in electric vehicles or combined electric hybrid gas vehicles. I don’t see them going back, especially at a time when China is coming on so strongly in the EV market, and we have a great disadvantage. We don’t have a national electricity grid, so we don’t have the kind of plug-in recharging stations that you need for people to be ready to go completely all-electric. And that’s a liability, but we better get our act together, because 59% of all new vehicles sold in China this year were electric vehicles, so they are going to completely dominate that market when the day comes.”
What is one thing you hope will happen in 2025?
“My biggest concerns right now are the U.S.-China trade war, Taiwan, climate change, managing AI and overall conflict and disorder around the world. China and the United States are the two biggest, most powerful countries in the world. They are both climate superpowers and AI superpowers. AI is coming very fast. Unless we have certain controls on it, it can really run away from us, and the only way to effectively have those controls is through some kind of broad understanding between the United States and China. And so if I had a fervent wish for the new year, it’s that President Trump and President Xi would have a phone call once a month to talk about these issues, manage them, tell each other what the other is doing that bothers them, and how to diffuse it. That’s my single wish for the new year.”
The presidential impeachment motion was passed by the National Assembly in South Korea recently. What are your thoughts on this?
“I only know the news headlines and find it difficult to comment as I’m not well-versed in the situation in Korea. However, I can’t understand why a country that has grown so well economically is so politically unstable. It’s unfortunate.”
☞Thomas Friedman
Thomas Friedman is a columnist for the New York Times who has received the prestigious Pulitzer Prize three times. He has written numerous bestsellers, including ‘The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization’ and ‘The World is Flat.’ He is particularly recognized as one of the world’s leading experts in the fields of Middle East issues, globalization, and climate crisis.
