President Trump appears to be embracing the view that the region is best left to manage its own problems.
President Donald Trump is drastically reshaping Washington’s approach to foreign policy in the Middle East. While bellicosity and unpredictability have come to define his personalized approach to foreign affairs, Trump is unafraid to break the traditional norms of diplomacy and statecraft that many argue have long held back both the United States and the Middle East. Should Trump stick to this unusual approach, centralizing a restrained foreign policy recognizing the limits of US power and interests, he could support the region’s leaders as they work to promote a new age of pragmatism and development.
The Riyadh Doctrine
Trump’s first major foreign speech in Riyadh on May 13 embodied a shift in US foreign policy. He wasted no time castigating past administrations and their regional policies:
This great transformation has not come from Western interventionists…giving you lectures on how to live or how to govern your own affairs. No, the gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called ‘nation-builders,’ ‘neo-cons,’ or ‘liberal non-profits,’ like those who spent trillions failing to develop Kabul and Baghdad, so many other cities. Instead, the birth of a modern Middle East has been brought about by the people of the region themselves…developing your own sovereign countries, pursuing your own unique visions, and charting your own destinies…In the end, the so-called ‘nation-builders’ wrecked far more nations than they built—and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves.
This rhetoric is unheard of from a modern US president. While previous attempts to realign US foreign policy priorities and approaches in the region are nothing new, they were never so robustly expressed or acted upon.
There are positive and negative possibilities inherent to Trump’s new foreign policy doctrine. Washington has long overextended itself across the globe, fighting every fight on every continent to influence everything, everywhere, all the time. This overreach has failed to consider real US interests and the capabilities needed to achieve them, resulting in the “Forever Wars” of the twenty-first century. Meanwhile, domestic problems continued to fester and security-first priorities increasingly harmed civil liberties at home.
Indeed, to argue that an overly securitized approach to policymaking in Washington has been a net negative for the average US citizen is an understatement. Yet, some aspects of foreign engagement have proven crucial. That includes international development and humanitarian work that has employed tens of thousands of Americans while supporting communities in need around the globe at relatively low costs. Such policies constitute critical soft power elements of any competent foreign policy. Indeed, altruism builds goodwill abroad, supporting at-need communities while building faith in the idea of the United States.
Restraint is Winning
Yet that shift from soft power tools is arguably most apparent in the Middle East, where Trump is upending decades of precedent today. Gone are the days of overly militarized approaches to the region, at least compared to prior administrations. In its place is a trade-focused, personalized transactionalism (which verges on cronyism)—an attitude that the wealthy, autocratic Gulf states can easily adapt to.
To be sure, that is not an entirely new reality. Multiple White Houses have cozied up the Gulf states for decades, largely because the United States needed the free flow of energy from the region and its arms deals. This logis was supported by a flawed “autocratic stability theory” mindset that produced neither peace nor development. Rather, it set the region back.
But Trump’s recent pivots signal a serious reorientation in the Middle East. While heavily reliant on the military initially, Trump’s ceasefire with the Houthi Movement (Ansar Allah) of Yemen on May 6 is one example. Talks with Iran over its nuclear program, just after committing to his previously failed “maximum pressure” strategy, as well as his removal of sanctions on Syria, offer more signals of new intentions.
Standing alone, these moves could be explained as typical realpolitik. The common theme among them is what makes the overall approach stand out: Trump’s apparent refusal to coordinate with Israel.
Indeed, Trump effectively trapped Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office on April 8 when he announced that his administration would enter direct talks with Iran. He did the same in direct talks with Hamas on multiple occasions, including one that saw Hamas release US-Israeli citizen and Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldier Edan Alexander on May 11. His decision to demote former National Security Advisor Mike Waltz over what some reports suggest was a far too cozy relationship with Israeli officials only highlights the extent of these moves—and perhaps Trump’s frustration with the status quo.
The decision not to include Israel on issues deemed critical to the United States in the Middle East is no small matter. Yet Trump continues to do so just four months into his second presidency, and for a good reason. Netanyahu has long boasted of his ability to manipulate American politics, garnering major policy wins that end up as losses for Washington. One of the most egregious examples of this dynamic was his 2002 calls for the United States to invade Iraq. We all know how that ended.
Ultimately, the US track record in the region is horrendous. It has blindly backed Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine, even when the conflict spilled beyond Gaza to threaten U.S. interests and soldiers in the region. It has upended governments in multiple countries, laying the seeds for extremist groups like the Islamic State to take over. It has bombed countless civilians in the name of “democracy” while virtue-signaling human rights principles it rarely upholds itself.
Acknowledging this past and adopting such realism—although hardly guaranteed given Trump’s sporadic nature—suggests a restraint-oriented approach to the region is winning. That outcome suggests fewer US interventions, handing the responsibility for regional stability back to its inhabitants where it belongs.
About the Author: Alexander Langlois
Alexander Langlois is a foreign policy analyst and Contributing Fellow at Defense Priorities. He is focused on the geopolitics of the Levant and the broader dynamics of West Asia. Follow him on X: @langloisajl.
Image: The White House / Wikimedia Commons.
