Zelensky’s Oval Office berating sends a stark warning to the Middle East

In a dramatic confrontation that has reverberated far beyond Washington, the explosive Oval Office exchange on Feb. 28 between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky represents a broader U.S. foreign policy — one that many in the Middle East have long viewed with deep skepticism.

The confrontation, which was intended to cement a framework minerals deal linking Ukraine’s resource wealth to continued U.S. aid, instead degenerated into a public spectacle marked by Trump’s patronizing demands and verbal ultimatums.

As the U.S. pressed Ukraine to show gratitude and compromise on its security priorities, critics in the Middle East saw confirmation of America’s global arrogance, as Washington sacrificed the interests and dignity of smaller states for its own national benefit.

For decades, states like Iran and its regional allies have maintained that American grandstanding comes at the expense of genuine partnership. Afghanistan under Ashraf Ghani, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Libya under Gaddafi, Egypt under General Morsi, and even Iran under Rouhani have negotiated with the U.S. only for Washington to demonstrate its fickleness.

Instead of forging a balanced approach to address Ukraine’s security needs amid ongoing Russian aggression, the Trump administration’s focus on securing economic concessions — specifically, a deal that would have transferred 50% of Ukraine’s natural resource revenues to an American-controlled fund — exposed an approach that treats allies as bargaining chips. This echoes the capitulations British and French empires once imposed on the Ottoman and Persian empires to extract oil and other raw materials.

Of course, this was not the first of Trump’s coercive and abrasive policies in his second administration. King Abdullah of Jordan was also treated in a non-diplomatic manner during negotiations over hosting people from Gaza. Middle Eastern leaders, including those who rely on strong international partnerships to navigate complex regional security challenges, can draw a sobering lesson from this: that negotiating with a hegemon often means accepting a subordinate role, where loyalty and gratitude are demanded in exchange for minimal security guarantees.

During Trump’s first term, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe once attempted to deliver a message from Trump to Iran — a gesture that the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, unequivocally rejected, declaring that a U.S. leader of Trump’s ilk did not deserve any form of communication with Iran. At that time, Khamenei’s refusal was widely criticized within certain segments of the Iranian government and society, with detractors arguing that his anti-American ideology was an impediment to resolving longstanding issues with the United States. However, in light of Trump’s recent humiliating exchanges with Ukraine and Jordan, those very critics have dramatically reversed their stance.

Today, many voices in Iran and its regional circles are lauding Khamenei for his steadfast rejection of American overtures, viewing his decision as a robust defense against what they perceive as America’s “global arrogance.” They contend that making further concessions to the U.S. would only serve to exacerbate Iran’s vulnerability, reinforcing the belief that genuine problem-solving in international relations must prioritize sovereign dignity over transactional appeasement.

This incident also underscores the inherent risks in alliances where power dynamics are unbalanced. In the heated Oval Office, Vice President JD Vance’s curt remark — “Have you said 'thank you' once?” — was not simply an offhand criticism; it symbolized a broader expectation that smaller partners must publicly affirm their indebtedness to the U.S. regardless of their own strategic imperatives.

For Middle Eastern states, especially Israel — a nation that has long balanced a unique security partnership with Washington — this scenario offers a cautionary tale. When a powerful ally imposes its own agenda and demands visible signs of subservience, the smaller partner’s strategic autonomy is inevitably compromised.

The berating treatment suffered by Zelensky, broadcast live on global media, serves as a warning that in dealings with a country that prioritizes its own interests above all, even a stalwart leader may find himself forced into a position that undermines both national pride and strategic bargaining power.

Moreover, the fallout from the meeting has already begun to reshape international diplomatic calculations. European allies, alarmed by Washington’s apparent willingness to engage in a high-stakes power play at the expense of a key ally, have expressed concerns that such behavior could destabilize collective security frameworks.

Many rockets fired from Iran are seen over Jerusalem from Hebron, West Bank, on Oct. 1, 2024. (Wisam Hashlamoun/Anadolu via Getty Images)

For Israel and other Middle Eastern nations, the situation presents an opportunity to reevaluate the dynamics of their own alliances with global powers. It reinforces the need for diversification in diplomatic engagements and a cautious approach toward any bilateral arrangement that might leave them vulnerable to coercive tactics. Instead of relying solely on U.S. backing, regional states might explore strengthening multilateral institutions or forging independent strategic partnerships that allow for more equitable negotiations — an approach that has long been advocated by critics of American foreign policy in the region.

Ultimately, this catastrophe exposes a critical flaw in U.S. diplomatic rhetoric that Middle Eastern states, including Israel, must heed.

Finally, this episode raises broader questions about the nature of modern geopolitics and the balance between national interest and alliance solidarity. The public debacle in the Oval Office is not merely a clash of personalities; it is a reflection of an enduring principle in international relations that many in the Middle East have always warned about: powerful nations often view alliances through the prism of transactional benefit rather than mutual respect.

For Israel, which has historically benefited from American support yet sometimes chafed under its conditions, the events of Feb. 28 serve as a critical reminder to safeguard its own strategic autonomy. In an era marked by shifting global power balances, regional states must remain vigilant and assertive in defining the terms of their cooperation.

The humiliation of a leader like Zelensky should not be taken as a precedent to follow, but rather as an impetus to demand a more balanced, reciprocal form of engagement — one that recognizes the intrinsic worth and sovereignty of all partners, regardless of size.

Ultimately, this catastrophe exposes a critical flaw in U.S. diplomatic rhetoric that Middle Eastern states, including Israel, must heed. If Washington continues to employ aggressive, self-serving language that reduces alliances to transactional power plays, it risks alienating vital partners in the region — partners like Saudi Arabia, Israel, and even Iran, which are increasingly gravitating toward China for a more balanced approach.

Such rhetoric not only humiliates key leaders like Zelensky, but also reinforces a dangerous narrative that only military might can prevent the humiliation and destruction of Middle Eastern nations. This perception, in turn, fuels an already volatile arms race and may even accelerate nuclear proliferation in countries like Iran.

As a policy imperative, the U.S. must recalibrate its diplomatic tone and adopt a more inclusive, respectful strategy that prioritizes mutual benefit and long-term stability over short-term economic gain. Failing to do so will not only weaken U.S. credibility but also reshape the geopolitical landscape in a manner that could leave American interests increasingly isolated.

Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in the op-ed section are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Kyiv Independent.