America First: Trump’s Revised Strategy in the Middle East
Trump’s New Strategy for the Middle East: Deal or Confrontation – Part One
Trump’s Second Administration Adopts a Firm Approach in the Middle East by Supporting Israel, Isolating Iran, and Marginalizing the Palestinians
The America First Policy May Lead to Instability in the Region
Donald Trump’s Return to the White House Occurs in a Global Geopolitical Context Increasingly Defined by Strategic Fluidity and New International Priorities. In This Outlook, the Middle East Remains a Crucial Knot for U.S. Foreign Policy, Albeit in a Different Manner than Before.
From Gaza Strip to the Persian Gulf, from the Red Sea to Syria, Washington’s Actions in This Region Historically Follow Consistent Paths, Although Approaches Have Varied Across Different Administrations.
Examining the Past Decade, Which Has Seen a Shift from Trump’s First Administration to Biden’s and Now to the Second Term of the New York Capitalist, It Is Clear That Democratic Presidencies Are Known for a More Cautious and Moderate Approach, in Contrast to Donald Trump’s Policies Often Perceived as Decisive and Power-Seeking. However, the Fundamental Difference Between These Two Types of Leadership Lies Not Only in Political Approach but Also in Style and Predictability.
Biden and His Team Are Generally Considered Reliable Partners by Regional Leaders, While Trump’s Unpredictability—Both Personally and Politically—Has Led to Distrust in Many Middle Eastern Capitals.
This Characteristic Can Have a Significant Impact on Institutional Relationships with Regional Leaders, Especially Amid the Increasing Instability Resulting from Twenty Months of War in Gaza and Escalating Tensions Between Israel and Iran. Not Coincidentally, Trump Demonstrated a Clear Willingness to Redefine the Traditional U.S. Position in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) from His Second Inaugural Speech on January 20, Returning to a Firm, Ideological, and Power-Based Approach.
Continuing the Approach Experienced During His First Term (2017-2021), This Billionaire Businessman Has Strengthened Political and Military Support for Israel and Abandoned the Multilateral and Diplomatic Paths Pursued During Biden’s Presidency—Especially Efforts Aimed at De-escalating Tensions with Tehran and Resuming Nuclear Negotiations. The Current Approach Is Built on a Bilateral and Power-Centric Logic, Where Iran’s Isolation Is Pursued Through Intensified Economic Sanctions, Aggressive Rhetoric, and Limited Military Operations, Although It Is Still Unclear How Long and to What Extent These Actions Will Continue.
Such a Decisive Approach Not Only Risks Exacerbating Existing Tensions but Also Poses the Danger of Structurally Destabilizing the Middle East. This Situation Is Aggravated by the Absence of a Stable and Agreed Multilateral Framework for Shared Values and Actions with Partners, as Well as the Lack of a Clear and Long-Term Strategic Vision from the United States to Navigate Regional Crises.
For This Reason, the Opening of a Military Front Between Tel Aviv and Tehran on June 13, 2025, Accompanied by U.S. Airstrikes on Iran’s Nuclear Sites in Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan on June 22, Appears to Fit Within This Framework.
The Military Operations by Israel and the United States Against the Islamic Republic Have Not Only Rekindled Regional Tension Dynamics but Also Raised Concerns About the Possibility of Direct U.S. Involvement in Another War in the Middle East, Which Contradicts the Peaceful and Unifying Promises Made by President Trump in His Second Inaugural Speech at the White House.
Although the Ceasefire Mediated by Qatar Has Temporarily Ended the So-called 12-Day War, Many Uncertainties Remain About the Current U.S. Administration’s True Intentions and Practical Capabilities in Managing This File, as Well as the Type of Intervention It Intends to Have in the Region.
The Ideological and Narrative-Driven Structure of Trump’s Foreign Policy
Even in Trump’s Second Term, the U.S. Political Line Has Followed a Continuous Trend with Previous Inclinations, Reaffirming the Concept of America First Not Just as a Campaign Slogan but as the Core Structure of a New Approach in International Politics Focused on Strategic Sovereignty and Selective and Purposeful Global Engagement.
Based on This Assumption, the United States Rejects the Role of Global Guarantor of Liberal Order and Only Intervenes When Its Vital Interests—Economically, Security-Wise, or Geopolitically—Are Directly Threatened or Challenged. Therefore, a Political Approach Based on an Opportunistic View of International Relations Takes Shape, Oscillating Between Non-Intervention, Protectionism, Unilateralism, and Transnationalism.
In This Anomic View of the World, However, Elements of Realism Are Also Seen, as Some Theorists Refer to the So-called Madman Theory, Which Emerged During the Cold War and Is Based on a Foreign Policy Premise That Emphasizes Absolute Unpredictability and Often Abstract Claims of Exceptionalism, Justifying Political Behavior Outside Conventional Rules. In the Specific Case of the Middle East, This Logic Translates into Active Anti-Globalism and a Return to a Transactional View in Relations, Where Treaties, Aid, and Commitments Are Subject to Cost-Benefit Assessments.
This Dynamic Also Manifests at the Level of Official Narratives, Where Human Rights, Democracy, and Forms of Normative Intervention Are Downgraded or Ignored as Manifestations of a Failed or Ideologically Globalist Liberal International Order. Instead, Reliable Partners in the Military and Economic Arena, Even if Authoritarian or Illiberal, Are Supported Provided They Ensure Stability and Are Interested in Containing Strategic Rivals and Enemies.
In This Structure, the Ideological Weight of a Type of Religious Nationalism, Centered Around the American Right, Plays a Complementary Role, Becoming a Significant Voting Base for the Republican Foundation and the Trumpist MAGA (Make America Great Again) Movement.
The Growing Influence of Evangelical Zionist Circles and the Explicit Support of Pro-Israel Lobbies Like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) or the Military Industry Has Strongly Influenced Strategic Choices in Favor of Tel Aviv.
The Axis Between Evangelicals and Israelis Particularly Reflects an Aggressive Ideological Discourse That Frames Opposition to Theocracy Solely in the Form of Islamism, Hiding Its Prejudice Behind Slogans Referring to Judeo-Christian Values and the Fight for the West.
A Significant Portion of Evangelical Voters See Themselves Engaged in a Struggle Against Evil, Recognized Internationally with Iran and Political Islam, and Domestically with the Democratic Party. In This Context, Many Perceive Trump as a Leader with a Divine Mission.
The Adopted Policies Reflect a Specific Convergence of Interests Between These Groups and the Trump Administration, Seeking Full Legitimacy for Israel’s Claims, Reducing the Importance of the Palestinian Issue as an Independent Diplomatic Topic, and Marginalizing It in the Middle East Policy Agenda, With the Potential Agreement of Gulf Arab Partners Who Are More Inclined to Embrace Trump’s Pragmatic Approach and Increase Militarism in Confrontation with Iran.
At Least in Terms of Intentions, Trump’s Administration’s Outlook Seems Focused on a Decisive Shift in U.S. Policies in the Middle East, Away from Over Two Decades of Military Interventions Mainly Focused on Fighting Terrorism and Exporting Democracy.
The Current President Has Announced His Intention to Adopt a More Pragmatic and Realistic Stance, Accompanied by Economic and Trade Commitments, and Refraining from Preaching About Internal Governance Issues in Regional Countries.
One of the Most Telling Statements from This Framework Was Trump’s Official Visit to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar from May 13 to 16, Where Among Trade Agreements, Billion-Dollar Contracts, Lifting of Sanctions, and Normalization of Relations with Syria, the Future Path the United States Will Follow in the Region Was Outlined. Trade Takes Priority, with Less Ethical-Political Concerns and Regional Stability Achieved Through Closer Engagement with the Gulf Arab Kingdoms in the American Strategy.
Thus, Multilateral Initiatives Launched by the Previous Biden Administration—Including Efforts to Revive Dialogue on Iran’s Nuclear Program or a Relative Rebalancing of U.S. Policy Toward the Palestinian Issue—Have Been Abandoned, Giving Way to Decisive and Sometimes Irrational Choices.
Instead, a Bilateral and Decisive Approach Prevails, Emphasizing Three Key and Intertwined Elements.
Full Support for Israel, Especially on the Palestinian Issue; Strengthening the Strategic Framework of the Abraham Accords; Returning to an Even More Decisive Policy Based on Maximum Pressure Against Iran.
These Principles Are Presented as the Only Possible and Effective Tools for Advancing U.S. Power and Stabilizing the Region. Equally Important Is Adopting a Pragmatic Approach Aimed at Achieving Mutual Benefits in Bilateral Relations with Key Regional Leaders—Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Turkey.
In This Path, Trump’s New Direction Seems to Prioritize Three Main Orientations: Protecting Economic Interests, Especially Related to Energy Security and Red Sea and Strait of Hormuz Trade; Managing Regional Power Balance by Strengthening the Position in Favor of Israel and Gulf Arab Kingdoms; Simultaneously Containing Iran, Russia, and China, Seen as Strategic Threats at Various but Interconnected Levels.
In the Context of Increasing Multipolar Competition, Iran Is Seen as a Destabilizing Actor, While China and Russia Are Recognized as Systematic Enemies—Beijing as a Structural and Global Threat, and Moscow as a Key for Division in the Front with Beijing and Tehran. Containing One and Deterring the Other Are Interwoven in a Logic Known as Dual Pressure, Guiding Many of the Administration’s Operational Decisions.
This Approach Has Already Had Direct Consequences: Increased U.S. Military Presence in the Region, Strengthened Intelligence and Defense Cooperation with Israel, and Intensified Diplomatic Pressure on Allies and Partners to Align with the U.S. Stance.
Clearly, Such a Vision, in Light of Recent Developments Stemming from Israeli and U.S. Airstrikes Against Iran, May Undergo Profound Changes—Developments That Could Alter the Balance of Power and Even Influence the Transactional Interventionist Nature of China and Russia in the Region.
The Result Is a Candidly Selective and Deeply Divisive Foreign Policy That Could Create New Fracture Lines in the Region and Ultimately Exacerbate Chronic and Widespread Instability in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).
Foreign Policy Tools
Within the Ideological Framework Adopted by the Trump Administration, Even the Main Tools of U.S. Foreign Policy—Diplomacy, Economy, Security, and Cooperation—Undergo a Significant and Inward Shift.
Transactional and Bilateral Diplomacy
Trump’s Second Term Has Shown a Remarkable Disregard for the Multilateral Aspect of Diplomacy, Which Is Considered Ineffective, Dispersed, and Caught in Bureaucratic or Ethical Constraints.
Instead, a Transactional and Power-Seeking Logic Is Being Established. Alliances and Partnerships Are Formed Based on Specific Agreements, Where Each Involved Actor Is Obliged to Provide a Concrete, Measurable, and Immediately Beneficial Contribution to Washington.
Agreements Are Made on the Basis of Tangible Exchanges—Such as Arms Sales, Diplomatic Recognition of Strategic Partners, For Example, Normalizing Israel’s Relations with Arab Countries, or Gaining Direct Political Benefits for the United States. This Logic Has Led to the Formation of Temporary and Ad Hoc Coalitions—Flexible Structures Without Long-Term Commitments, Focused on Specific Issues, and Often Dissolved After Achieving the Goal.
Simultaneously, These Types of Actions Bear the Risk of Irreversibly Undermining International Law and Respect for Its Rules, Steering Us Toward a Global Order Based on the Law of the Jungle and the Will of the Stronger.
In Such a Scenario, a System Based on Norms and Double Standards Is Established—a System Where Laws Are Selectively Enforced, Mandatory for Some and Optional for Others.
Economic Tools: Trade, Energy, and Infrastructure
Trump’s Second Term Has Adopted a Bold and Pragmatic Approach to Trade and Infrastructure Agreements, Aiming to Exploit Them as Tools for Geostrategic Influence.
Projects Like the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) and Even the Abraham Accords, Originally Designed for Regional Economic Development and Stability, Are Now Interpreted in a New Framework as Platforms for Expanding U.S. Influence and Simultaneously Applying Containment Policies Against China, Russia, and Iran.
Energy Policy and Industry Play a Central Role. Fossil Resources, Advanced Technologies, Artificial Intelligence, and the Defense Industry Become Prime Tools of Pressure and Influence. Contracts Related to the Supply of Advanced Military Weapons and Technologies Are Used to Strengthen Alliances, Reset the Balance of Power, and Create Strategic Dependencies with Regional Partners—Especially in the Gulf and the Levant.
Security and Counterterrorism
Security Remains a Main Pillar of the U.S. Strategy, but It Has Undergone a Significant Transformation. The New Administration Prioritizes Selective Withdrawal and Reduction of Military Forces in the Region, While Simultaneously Increasing Targeted Operations on the Ground, Including Drone Missions, Intelligence Activities, and Strengthening Regional Security Partnerships.
The Main Focus Is on Containing Iran-Backed Shia Groups Like Hezbollah, Militias in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, and Remnants of Sunni Jihadism, Including Al-Qaeda and ISIS Cells Active in Unstable Areas. In This Framework, a Model Known as Smart Proxy Warfare Has Been Prioritized—a Model Where the United States Provides Technical, Logistical, and Intelligence Support but Minimizes Its Direct Involvement.
Simultaneously, a Strict Approach to Issues Such as Migration from the Region Has Been Adopted, Including Reinstating Travel Bans Against Countries Considered Supporters of Islamist International Terrorism.
Cooperation for Development
In the Field of International Cooperation, We Witness a Fundamental and Extensive Redefinition of Aid Tools, a Shift That Represents a Clear Departure from Traditional Models Represented by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) or Decades-Long Support for Various United Nations Agencies.
Development Aid Is Reduced, Restructured, or Privatized and Becomes Dependent on Political Logic and Specific Conditions.
In Other Words, Economic Aid Is Only Granted If It Aligns with the United States’ Strategic Interests. These Aids Are Part of a Broader Strategy to Contain Competitors’ Influence, Encourage Diplomatic Alignment, or Serve as a Bargaining Chip in Bilateral Negotiations.
The Result Is a Politicization of Development Aid, Creating a Structure That Moves Away from Humanitarian Goals and Plays an Instrumental Role in the Global Power Game.
Prominent Examples of This Trend Include the Closure of USAID and the Establishment of a Geneva-Based Israeli-American NGO Named Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, Which Takes Over the Centralized Management of Humanitarian Aid Instead of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).
Therefore, It Is Clear That the Tools Employed by the Trump Administration Are Now Oriented to Achieve Maximum Effectiveness in the Short Term, While Simultaneously Raising Important Questions About the Sustainability of These Tools Over Time, Their Domestic and International Political Costs, and Their Consequences at the Regional and Global Level in the Medium and Long Term.
