The harrowing siege of Madaya, one of the darkest episodes in the Syrian civil war, epitomizes the Assad regime’s scorched-earth strategy during the conflict. From 2015 to 2017, this once-idyllic town was transformed into a prison where survival hinged on consuming stray animals, weeds, and even tree bark. As Syria begins to chart a post-Assad future, Madaya’s story stands as both a testament to the resilience of its people and a searing reminder of the atrocities committed.

Madaya’s plight was emblematic of the Assad regime’s brutal siege tactics, designed to break opposition strongholds by weaponizing hunger. Encircled by landmines, snipers, and Hezbollah militants, the town of 40,000 people became a microcosm of desperation. Residents traded their few remaining possessions—cars for cups of rice, household items for scraps of food—while enduring the psychological torment of social media posts from their oppressors flaunting lavish meals.

What made Madaya’s siege particularly horrifying was the systematic deprivation. Reports of families resorting to eating stray animals, bones, and even soiled nappies underscore the inhumanity of a conflict that made starvation a deliberate tool of war.

The involvement of Hezbollah, one of Assad’s closest allies, added another layer of cruelty to the siege. Residents who might have found some reprieve through smuggled goods faced an even harsher reality when Hezbollah took charge. Food became entirely inaccessible, and escape was met with sniper fire. The mockery of Hezbollah supporters on social media revealed the sadistic edge of the siege, where dehumanization was as much a weapon as bullets and bombs.

When the siege was finally lifted in 2017, it came at a devastating cost. Civilians and rebels were forcibly displaced to Idlib province under a controversial deal brokered by Qatar and Iran. For those who stayed behind, the sudden influx of aid brought its own dangers; malnourished bodies, unprepared for real sustenance, succumbed to the shock of nourishment.

The aftermath of the siege left Madaya in a fragile state. Under Hezbollah’s rule, the scars of starvation and death lingered, with survivors recounting stories of enduring trauma and lives irreparably altered.

Now that Assad’s regime has fallen, Madaya’s residents are speaking out, but their voices carry a warning for the future of Syria. The suffering endured during the siege was not an isolated atrocity; it was part of a broader strategy of repression that affected millions across the country. As Syrians look to rebuild, the stories of places like Madaya must be central to the nation’s reckoning.

The return of displaced individuals, like rebel fighter Rais Ahmed al-Maleh, highlights the bittersweet reunions taking place amid a backdrop of uncertainty. For Madaya’s residents, the future remains precarious, shaped by the deep wounds of war and the challenge of rebuilding a fractured community.

The story of Madaya serves as a stark reminder of the human cost of war and the failure of international systems to prevent such atrocities. While the UN and global powers were able to broker a fragile end to the siege, it came far too late for the dozens who starved to death and the many others who live with the trauma of those dark years.

As Syria transitions, the world must hold its perpetrators accountable, including the Assad regime and its allies, for the systematic suffering inflicted on towns like Madaya. Justice for survivors is not just a moral imperative but a foundation for any meaningful peace.

Madaya’s haunting legacy should serve as a rallying cry for a post-Assad Syria to prioritize accountability, reconciliation, and healing. The town’s ordeal underscores the cruelty of war but also the resilience of its people. As Syria seeks to rebuild, ensuring that the voices of places like Madaya are heard will be crucial to forging a path toward a just and stable future.

The downing of two US Navy pilots in the Red Sea due to apparent “friendly fire” has brought to light significant challenges surrounding operational coordination during high-stakes missions. While both pilots survived the incident, the mishap highlights the inherent risks of complex military operations in a region fraught with escalating tensions.

According to the US Central Command, the guided-missile cruiser USS Gettysburg mistakenly fired on an F/A-18 fighter jet flying off the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman. Although the exact circumstances remain unclear, this occurred during US airstrikes targeting Houthi rebel positions in Yemen. This raises questions about situational awareness, communication, and coordination within the Carrier Strike Group.

Friendly fire incidents, while rare, underscore the difficulties of conducting multi-asset operations in high-pressure environments. The incident suggests either a miscommunication between naval units or a failure in target identification systems, both of which require urgent investigation to prevent recurrence.

The Red Sea, a critical global shipping corridor, has become a hotspot for military activity. Iran-backed Houthi forces have targeted international vessels and launched missiles against Israel, prompting US and allied retaliatory strikes. Amid these tensions, American forces are tasked with protecting maritime routes, deterring Houthi aggression, and safeguarding regional allies.

The intensity of operations in this volatile environment amplifies the risks of miscalculation. The incident serves as a stark reminder of the complexities involved in coordinating air, naval, and ground operations in such a crowded theater.

The Red Sea incident reflects the complexities of modern military engagements where multi-domain operations must function in unison. While the survival of the pilots is a relief, the mishap serves as a cautionary tale of the operational risks inherent in high-tension environments. For the US, maintaining credibility in the region requires not only robust action against adversaries like the Houthis but also minimizing self-inflicted errors that undermine its strategic objectives.

The recent US airstrikes on Houthi-controlled facilities in Yemen mark a sharp escalation in the broader conflict in the Middle East. Targeting missile storage and command centers, these strikes underscore Washington’s determination to curb the Houthi threat to maritime security and regional stability. However, the growing military entanglement of global powers in Yemen raises concerns about the conflict spiraling further, with profound implications for the region.

The Iran-backed Houthi movement, long entrenched in Yemen, has expanded its operations beyond the country’s borders. Their attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea, Bab al-Mandeb Strait, and Gulf of Aden aim to enforce a naval blockade on Israel, aligning their actions with Tehran’s strategic goals and the Palestinian cause. Recent missile strikes on Israel’s Tel Aviv and retaliatory airstrikes by Israel and the US highlight the Houthis’ growing military sophistication and regional reach.

The Houthis’ use of advanced drones, cruise missiles, and other weaponry, reportedly supplied by Iran, signifies a troubling shift in the balance of power in the region. Their ability to strike critical maritime and urban targets threatens international trade routes and regional partners, compelling the US and its allies to respond militarily.

The US airstrikes aim to disrupt Houthi operations while protecting international shipping lanes and deterring further attacks on US and coalition forces. These strikes also serve as a broader message to Iran, signaling Washington’s readiness to counter its proxies in Yemen.

However, the military intervention carries risks. Escalating airstrikes could push the Houthis to intensify their attacks, further destabilizing the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. The US is also weighing re-designating the Houthis as a terrorist organization, a move that could complicate humanitarian aid delivery and exacerbate Yemen’s dire humanitarian crisis.

The Houthis’ actions cannot be isolated from Iran’s broader strategy in the Middle East. By arming the Houthis and enabling their missile and drone capabilities, Tehran has created a powerful proxy capable of challenging US and Israeli interests. The strikes against Houthi infrastructure by both the US and Israel reflect a coordinated effort to weaken Iran’s influence in Yemen and counter its growing regional network.

The escalating conflict underscores the Red Sea’s strategic importance. The waterway connects global trade between Europe and Asia, making it a critical chokepoint for international commerce. Disruptions caused by Houthi attacks could have global economic repercussions, heightening the stakes for all involved parties.

Washington’s efforts to secure UN backing for interdicting ships heading to Houthi-controlled ports reflect the urgency of the situation. However, such measures may deepen tensions with Iran and its allies, while complicating Yemen’s already fractured political landscape.

Military action against the Houthis risks worsening Yemen’s humanitarian crisis, which is among the world’s most severe. The potential re-designation of the Houthis as a terrorist group could hinder aid operations in areas they control, affecting millions of civilians reliant on international assistance. Striking a balance between military objectives and humanitarian needs remains a key challenge for the US and its allies.

The US airstrikes in Yemen reflect the intersection of global geopolitics and local insurgency, with the Houthis serving as a flashpoint for broader tensions between Iran, Israel, and the US. While these strikes aim to curb Houthi aggression and secure vital trade routes, they risk entrenching the conflict further and escalating regional instability.

In this volatile landscape, finding a path that neutralizes threats while mitigating humanitarian consequences will be critical. However, with no immediate diplomatic solutions in sight and the Houthis’ growing alignment with Tehran’s regional ambitions, the conflict shows little sign of abating. The Red Sea remains a contested arena, with global powers jostling for influence in a high-stakes geopolitical game.

The deadly attack on the Magdeburg Christmas market has left Germany in shock and mourning, reigniting debates around immigration, integration, and security. The actions of Taleb al-Abdulmohsen, a Saudi national with a complex and contradictory profile, have shattered lives and raised troubling questions about the evolving nature of extremism and its intersection with identity politics.

Abdulmohsen’s background is as unsettling as it is perplexing. A Saudi-born doctor, ex-Muslim, and critic of Islam, he had lived in Germany for over 17 years, building a public persona as a defender of Saudi women and a vocal opponent of Islamic extremism. His self-styled identity as a reformist and supporter of Germany’s far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party defied conventional narratives of radicalization. Yet, his actions—deliberately plowing an SUV through a crowded Christmas market—underscore how personal grievances and ideological contradictions can fuel deadly violence.

Abdulmohsen’s online activity reveals a man consumed by resentment. His denunciations of German authorities for alleged bias against Saudi asylum seekers, his veiled threats against former Chancellor Angela Merkel, and his final chilling post warning of “something big” signal a descent into violent nihilism. This attack, one of the deadliest in recent German history, tragically fulfilled his warnings.

The attack highlights systemic vulnerabilities. Despite Saudi authorities reportedly warning German counterparts about Abdulmohsen’s potential for violence, he remained under the radar. Questions about why these warnings were not acted upon are certain to dominate the national discourse, further eroding trust in security agencies.

Additionally, the perpetrator bypassed Magdeburg’s security measures, including barriers designed to prevent vehicle attacks. The failure to block the emergency service corridor he used demonstrates that even fortified sites can be exploited by determined assailants.

The timing of the attack could not be more critical. Germany is in the midst of an election campaign following the collapse of Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s coalition government. Immigration and national security have become lightning-rod issues, with right-wing parties, including the AfD, gaining ground in the polls. The attack provides ammunition for far-right narratives, further polarizing the nation’s political landscape.

The chilling echoes of the 2016 Berlin Christmas market attack, which killed 12, will deepen public fears and amplify calls for tighter immigration controls and enhanced security. The tragedy is likely to intensify scrutiny of Germany’s asylum policies and raise uncomfortable questions about the challenges of integration.

The attack in Magdeburg is a grim reminder of Europe’s vulnerability to terrorism, particularly at high-profile public events. While Islamist extremism has dominated the narrative in past incidents, Abdulmohsen’s complex motivations blur traditional categories of radicalization. This shift highlights the need for security strategies that account for diverse ideological threats, including those stemming from personal grievances, fractured identities, and online radicalization.

The Magdeburg tragedy is a stark reminder of the fragility of safety and the deep divisions within society. As Germany mourns its losses, it must confront hard questions about how to balance security, integration, and freedom. For Magdeburg and its people, the haunting refrain of “Fröhliche Weihnacht Überall” is a poignant symbol of resilience in the face of incomprehensible tragedy.

This Christmas, Germany stands at a crossroads, grappling with not just the aftermath of an attack but with the broader challenge of healing a nation increasingly divided by fear and uncertainty.

French President Emmanuel Macron’s recent visits to Djibouti and Ethiopia highlight France’s shifting priorities and evolving strategies in Africa. Against the backdrop of declining influence in former colonies, these visits underscore Macron’s intent to strengthen strategic footholds in the Horn of Africa and redefine France’s role on the continent.

Macron’s visit to Djibouti reaffirms the critical importance of the French military base there, especially as France faces an erosion of its military presence in West Africa. The base, positioned at the gateway to the Indian Ocean and Red Sea trade routes, is integral to France’s Indo-Pacific strategy, connecting Europe with Asia and ensuring maritime security.

Macron emphasized that Djibouti’s base stands apart from France’s recent recalibrations, which have seen withdrawals from Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, and Chad. The enduring French presence in Djibouti symbolizes not just military cooperation but a broader commitment to maintaining regional stability amidst increasing competition from China, which also has a military base in Djibouti.

The signing of accords for infrastructure development, including a new airport and space agency, demonstrates France’s long-term commitment to its relationship with Djibouti, ensuring the partnership extends beyond defense into economic and technological collaboration.

In Ethiopia, Macron’s visit underscores France’s efforts to deepen ties with one of Africa’s most populous and strategically significant nations. Ethiopia has long been a cornerstone of stability in the Horn of Africa, and its influence in regional politics makes it an essential partner for France.

Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s warm reception of Macron reflects the strengthening partnership, characterized by increased trade, investment, and cultural cooperation. Notably, the two nations commemorated 125 years of diplomatic relations in 2022, marking a history of collaboration that has weathered significant geopolitical changes.

France’s continued engagement in Ethiopia, including investment forums and bilateral discussions, demonstrates its intent to play a role in Ethiopia’s development. This partnership aligns with Macron’s broader strategy of maintaining relevance in Africa through economic and diplomatic channels rather than military dominance.

France’s diminishing presence in West Africa, driven by the expulsion of French troops by military juntas, has forced a strategic pivot. Macron’s focus on Djibouti and Ethiopia signals an attempt to anchor France’s influence in the Horn of Africa, a region increasingly shaped by great-power competition involving China, the U.S., and regional players like Turkey and the UAE.

By fostering economic ties and reaffirming military commitments in Djibouti and Ethiopia, Macron is signaling that France remains a relevant actor in Africa, albeit with a recalibrated approach that emphasizes partnership over dominance.

Macron’s visits to Djibouti and Ethiopia reflect a strategic effort to adapt to changing dynamics in Africa. While France’s historical footholds in West Africa are eroding, its engagement in the Horn of Africa offers a chance to maintain influence in a region critical to global trade and security.

The challenge for France will be to sustain these partnerships in the face of competing interests from global powers and regional actors. By prioritizing mutual economic development and regional stability, Macron seeks to reinvent France’s role as a trusted partner in Africa’s evolving geopolitical landscape.

The potential recognition of Somaliland by the United States represents a watershed moment for the Horn of Africa and global geopolitics. Somaliland’s stability and strategic location make it a vital player in regional and international affairs. However, introducing military bases into Somaliland risks entangling it in conflicts that could destabilize the region, contradicting the very goals of recognition. Recognition must come without the baggage of military footprints to ensure Somaliland’s sovereignty and neutrality remain intact.

The Risks of Military Footprints in Somaliland

The establishment of a U.S. or allied military base in Somaliland, such as at the Berbera port, could inadvertently draw the region into ongoing conflicts, particularly the war between Iran-aligned Houthis in Yemen and the U.S.-Israel alliance. Recent years have shown the Houthis’ capability to strike far beyond Yemen’s borders, employing advanced ballistic missiles and drones against targets in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel. A military presence in Berbera would likely be viewed as an extension of U.S. and Israeli military operations, making Somaliland a potential target for retaliation.

Somaliland has no direct stake in these conflicts, and any involvement would erode its hard-won peace and stability. Becoming a battleground for proxy wars or a pawn in global rivalries would undermine its aspirations for recognition and self-determination.

History offers numerous cautionary tales of how military bases can provoke conflict. The U.S. military presence in Somalia in the early 1990s, intended to stabilize the region, culminated in the disastrous Battle of Mogadishu, further destabilizing the country. Similarly, military bases in the Middle East, such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, often became focal points for insurgent attacks and prolonged conflicts. Somaliland, with its stable governance and strategic location, cannot afford to follow this trajectory.

Strategic Neutrality and Global Maritime Importance

Somaliland occupies a crucial position in global maritime trade, controlling access to the Gulf of Aden and the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, a chokepoint for vessels heading to the Suez Canal. Its stability ensures safe passage for billions of dollars’ worth of goods, making it an indispensable player in global trade. Recognition of Somaliland would solidify its role as a reliable partner in ensuring maritime security, benefiting all stakeholders without necessitating military entanglements.

China and Russia have expressed interest in recognizing Somaliland without introducing military bases, focusing instead on economic partnerships and infrastructure development. Their approach underscores the potential for Somaliland to maintain a neutral stance, engaging with global powers without aligning with military blocs.

A Double Standard in U.S. Policy?

The U.S. has historically opposed military agreements that could destabilize Somaliland or the Horn of Africa. For example, Washington criticized the Memorandum of Understanding between Somaliland and Ethiopia, arguing that Ethiopian military involvement could escalate regional tensions and fuel Islamist extremism. However, the current U.S. interest in establishing a military footprint in Berbera represents a stark departure from this position, raising questions about the consistency of its policy.

Recognizing Somaliland without introducing a military presence would align with the original U.S. argument that stability in the region is paramount. By supporting Somaliland’s sovereignty and strengthening economic and political ties, the U.S. could counter Chinese and Russian influence without risking the region’s peace.

Recognition Without Conflict: The Way Forward

Recognition of Somaliland must prioritize its stability and neutrality. The introduction of military bases risks undermining both, turning Somaliland into a battleground for external conflicts. Instead, the U.S. should focus on:

1. Strengthening Economic Ties: Collaborating with Somaliland on trade, infrastructure, and development projects would enhance its role as a global maritime hub and counter Chinese and Russian influence constructively.
2. Supporting Governance and Security: Offering technical and financial support to Somaliland’s democratic institutions and local security forces can bolster internal stability without external military involvement.
3. Facilitating Regional Cooperation: Encouraging dialogue between Somaliland and its neighbors to address shared challenges, such as maritime security and countering extremism, would position Somaliland as a leader in regional stability.
4. Neutral Recognition: By recognizing Somaliland as a sovereign state without attaching military commitments, the U.S. can demonstrate respect for its sovereignty and avoid entangling it in the geopolitical struggles between East and West.

Conclusion: A Strategic Partner, Not a Battleground

Somaliland’s strategic importance in global maritime trade and its stability make it a valuable partner for the U.S. and other global powers. However, recognition must come without military footprints that risk provoking conflict. By focusing on economic partnerships, governance support, and regional cooperation, the U.S. can strengthen its position in the Horn of Africa while ensuring Somaliland’s neutrality and sovereignty remain intact.

Recognition without militarization is not only in Somaliland’s best interest but also in the interest of global stability, ensuring that the region does not become yet another theater of war in the struggle between global powers.

The U.S. decision to remove the $10 million bounty on Ahmed al-Sharaa, also known as Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, reflects a significant recalibration of Washington’s policy toward Syria following the ouster of President Bashar al-Assad. While the move signals a willingness to engage with new powerbrokers, including the controversial leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), it underscores the complexities of navigating Syria’s fragmented post-Assad landscape.

The removal of the bounty on Sharaa, the leader of a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, highlights a pragmatic shift by Washington. According to Barbara A. Leaf, the assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs, Sharaa has committed to ensuring that terrorist groups no longer pose a threat within or beyond Syria’s borders. This condition appears to have catalyzed the U.S. policy change as Washington engages with the new stakeholders shaping Syria’s future.

The move comes amid broader efforts by Western nations to establish diplomatic ties with the new Syrian authorities. Countries like Britain, France, and Germany are gradually reopening channels, while Qatar and Turkey have signaled their intentions to re-establish embassies. This coordinated approach could pave the way for lifting sanctions that have crippled Syria’s economy, though no formal steps have been taken yet.

Sharaa’s leadership of HTS, an organization still designated as a terrorist group by the U.S., presents a diplomatic paradox. While the U.S. seeks assurances from Sharaa to curb extremist activities, his controversial past and ties to militant operations complicate efforts to frame him as a legitimate partner. Moreover, the integration of HTS into Syria’s new political landscape has raised concerns about its long-term role in governance and security.

The Biden administration’s outreach also reflects a strategic interest in ensuring Syria does not become a breeding ground for terrorism. With over 2,000 American troops still stationed in the country and ongoing airstrikes against Islamic State (IS) targets, Washington remains deeply involved despite signals of disengagement from President-elect Donald Trump.

Trump’s public statements indicate a preference for a noninterventionist approach, with comments praising Turkey’s role in Assad’s ouster and downplaying U.S. involvement. However, the realities on the ground suggest a more complex picture. U.S. forces remain in Syria, backing the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the north, even as Turkey views the SDF as allies of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). These tensions complicate U.S.-Turkey relations and highlight the challenges of balancing alliances in the region.

Trump’s rhetoric, including his assertion that Assad’s removal was primarily driven by Turkish forces, has been met with skepticism by analysts. While Ankara has denied direct involvement, its influence on rebel groups and its broader strategic goals in Syria remain significant factors.

The ongoing humanitarian crisis and concerns about governance in post-Assad Syria remain central to U.S. and international priorities. Efforts to uncover information about missing Americans, such as journalist Austin Tice, signal the continued focus on human rights and accountability. However, the fragmented nature of the new Syrian authorities and unresolved regional rivalries pose significant obstacles to stabilization.

The U.S. also faces pressure to maintain a cohesive approach during the transition between the Biden and Trump administrations. National security adviser Jake Sullivan emphasized the importance of a unified message to both allies and adversaries, but Trump’s potential pivot toward reduced engagement could create gaps in U.S. influence during a critical period.

The removal of the bounty on Sharaa signals a pragmatic but controversial recalibration of U.S. policy. As Washington seeks to shape Syria’s future while avoiding direct entanglement, it must navigate a web of alliances, rivalries, and competing narratives. Ensuring stability will require balancing the interests of key regional players like Turkey, Israel, and the Gulf states, while addressing the humanitarian and security challenges that continue to plague the country.

Ultimately, the success of U.S. engagement in post-Assad Syria will depend on its ability to manage these tensions, maintain a coherent strategy, and adapt to the rapidly shifting dynamics of a fractured region.

President-elect Donald Trump’s calls to end the Gaza conflict quickly have introduced a new dynamic to an already fraught situation in the Middle East. His rhetoric, marked by fiery threats and vague promises of action, signals a strong desire to claim credit for resolving the war before his inauguration on January 20, 2025. However, achieving such a resolution faces significant obstacles, shaped by entrenched regional dynamics, competing interests, and the ongoing transition between U.S. administrations.

Trump’s warnings, such as his statement that “all hell is going to break out” if Hamas does not release hostages, are in line with his characteristic bombast. While his comments suggest the possibility of military or economic pressure on Hamas and its external backers, they lack specificity. Analysts suggest that Trump’s approach may include targeting Hamas members outside Gaza, pressuring nations like Iran that support the group, or leveraging financial sanctions to cut off resources.

While such tactics could complicate Hamas’ operations, they are unlikely to drastically change the on-the-ground reality in Gaza, where Israel’s military campaign has already exacted a devastating toll over the past 14 months. Any actions by Trump would likely build on existing Israeli operations rather than introduce dramatically harsher measures.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces a delicate balancing act. Domestically, he must appease his ultraright-wing coalition, which has called for annexing parts of Gaza and expanding settlements. Internationally, he must contend with Trump’s apparent disinterest in prolonged occupation or settlement expansion, as the president-elect appears more focused on broadening the Abraham Accords to include Saudi Arabia. These competing pressures could shape Netanyahu’s decisions in the coming months.

Trump’s ambitions for a breakthrough with Saudi Arabia, potentially earning him a Nobel Peace Prize, clash with the Israeli far-right’s demands for territorial expansion. This divergence may force Netanyahu to adjust his policies, especially if Trump leverages U.S. influence to push for concessions.

The ongoing U.S. presidential transition further complicates the situation. The Biden administration has pledged to continue its diplomatic efforts to secure a ceasefire before leaving office, but its waning influence limits its ability to broker a lasting solution. Biden’s team has engaged with regional players like Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar, yet the prospect of a fundamental shift before January 20 appears slim.

Both Biden and Trump have emphasized the need for a seamless transition in handling the conflict, presenting a unified message of urgency. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan highlighted the importance of this collaboration to prevent adversaries from exploiting perceived vulnerabilities during the transition. However, Hamas is likely calculating that promises made by Biden’s administration may not hold under Trump, potentially delaying negotiations.

Despite Trump’s rhetoric, a rapid resolution remains unlikely. The entrenched nature of the conflict, coupled with Hamas’ resilience and Israel’s strategic interests, presents formidable barriers. Trump’s approach may influence the regional narrative and pressure key actors, but his ability to secure a swift and comprehensive resolution will depend on aligning the disparate interests of the U.S., Israel, and regional players.

The Gaza war’s endgame will likely hinge on whether international actors can present a cohesive vision for post-conflict governance, security, and reconstruction. Trump’s tenure will test whether his hardline rhetoric can translate into meaningful action—or whether the conflict will outlast his administration’s ambitions.