Donalt Trump and Middle East: "Trump's Middle East Legacy"

"DonaltTrump and Middle East": Donald Trump's foreign policy philosophy can be summarized by the slogan "America First," representing a clear departure from previous administrations.

HISTORYCURRENT EVENTS

6/26/202514 min read

Trump's Middle East Legacy: Impacts of an Era and Reflections on the Future

Introduction: "America First" and the New Face of the Middle East

Donald Trump's foreign policy philosophy can be summarized by the slogan "America First," representing a clear departure from previous administrations. This approach is based on the belief that the U.S. should stay out of "stupid wars" and that the costs of military adventures far outweigh their potential benefits. Trump stated that he would measure success not by wars won, but by wars ended or never entered. This highlights his foreign policy's underlying realism and focus on protecting national interests. This approach signifies a fundamental redefinition of the U.S.'s global role. Trump's statements about "avoiding stupid wars" and "military adventures' costs outweighing benefits" reflect a widespread fatigue among U.S. administrations with interventionism in the region, particularly after Iraq and Afghanistan. This was not merely rhetoric but formed the basis of a paradigm shift in foreign policy.

The Trump administration abandoned traditional foreign policy approaches towards the Middle East, focusing more on negotiated agreements, limited use of military force, and large economic deals to counterbalance China's influence. This indicates that the U.S. moved away from "military-heavy, large-footprint interventions focused on global counterterrorism and democratic nation-building" in the region, adopting a more pragmatic and transactional stance. This shift led to a focus on "negotiated agreements" and "large economic deals" rather than military solutions. This reveals that the U.S. no longer viewed the region as an arena for imposing its values, but as an area to maximize its economic and national security interests. This pragmatic, transactional approach also aligned with the economic diversification and development goals of many countries in the region, creating areas of mutual interest.

Trump's first overseas trip in his second term was to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE. This visit was interpreted as containing elements of a generational recalibration of the U.S. posture in the Middle East. It was seen as a "turning point" where regional balances were shifting, and the the U.S. was attempting to adapt to this change.

Iran Policy: Maximum Pressure and Nuclear Stalemate

The Trump administration withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed with Iran in 2015. Trump had criticized the agreement for giving Iran too much in return for too little, as it did not cover Iran's non-nuclear malign behavior. This withdrawal marked the beginning of a "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran, elevating efforts to curb Iran's nuclear program to a new level.

Despite his promises to keep the U.S. out of "stupid wars," Trump engaged in direct military interventions, claiming to have delivered a "knockout blow" to Iran's nuclear program. U.S. airstrikes allegedly "obliterated" three critical Iranian enrichment facilities. These attacks were believed to have been carried out at Israel's urging and with Israeli operations setting the stage. Trump's claims of "destroying the nuclear program" support Israel's long-held argument for military intervention. However, while these actions might have delivered a short-term blow to Iran's nuclear capabilities, they also have the potential to increase Iran's desire to acquire nuclear weapons in the long run and escalate the risk of a broader regional conflict. The "maximum pressure" policy, instead of bringing Iran to the negotiating table, might push it to make its nuclear program more clandestine and resilient.

The ultimate outcomes of military actions on Iran's nuclear program remain uncertain. Some experts argue that these limited U.S. strikes are unlikely to halt Iran's nuclear program and could even increase Iran's imperative to develop nuclear weapons. Israeli intelligence indicated that Iranians moved some equipment from Fordow before the U.S. strike, increasing the likelihood that the Islamic Republic retained at least some enrichment capacity. It was also emphasized that nuclear knowledge cannot be destroyed. This means that what initially appeared as a success, the military action, could actually create a "backlash" effect, leading Iran to pursue its nuclear goals more resolutely rather than abandoning them. Thus, while a tactical blow may have been struck, strategically, Iran's nuclearization trend may have been strengthened, increasing long-term instability in the region.

Following 12 days of tension, Trump announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Although Trump claimed Iran's nuclear program was "completely and fully obliterated," this assertion contradicts independent assessments. Iran condemned the U.S. attacks as a "grave violation of international law and the UN Charter," calling for an emergency UN Security Council meeting. Iran had stated that U.S. intervention would "invite an all-out war in the region." Iran's Foreign Minister hinted that his country might withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Since his 2016 campaign, Trump's rhetoric of "no endless wars" and "avoiding stupid wars" was a cornerstone of his foreign policy philosophy. However, direct military intervention against Iran directly contradicts this promise. This contradiction even led to debates among prominent MAGA figures like Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, and Marjorie Taylor Greene. This situation highlights the gap between a leader's foreign policy rhetoric and real-world actions, potentially causing even their voter base to question inconsistencies. This internal tension could be a significant factor in future foreign policy decisions or in securing public support.

Trump Era Iran Policy: Key Steps and Outcomes can be summarized as follows:

In 2015, the decision was made to withdraw from the JCPOA. The intended outcome of this decision was to compel Iran into a nuclear agreement and prevent its malign behavior. However, the actual or observed outcome was Iran's tendency to increase its nuclear activities and a rise in regional tension.

In June 2025, airstrikes were conducted on Iranian Nuclear Facilities. The intended outcome of these strikes was to deliver a "knockout blow" to Iran's nuclear program and destroy its nuclear weapons capability. However, the actual or observed outcome was Iran moving equipment, the indestructibility of nuclear knowledge, and the risk of an increased desire to develop nuclear weapons.

Also in June 2025, a ceasefire between Israel and Iran was announced. The intended outcome of this ceasefire was to end regional conflict and ensure stability. However, the actual or observed outcome was the fragility of the ceasefire, Trump's claims contradicting independent assessments, and the possibility of Iran withdrawing from the NPT.

Israel-Palestine Dynamics: Jerusalem Decision and Abraham Accords

Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital fundamentally altered decades of U.S. foreign policy. This decision effectively gave Israel a "blank political check for its illegal annexation of Jerusalem" and legitimized "Israel’s ongoing displacement and disenfranchisement of the city’s Palestinian residents." This move was deemed contrary to international law and eliminated the U.S.'s claim to be an "unbiased mediator." For 70 years, official U.S. policy had maintained neutrality on Jerusalem's status, which was the basis for its acceptance as a mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital completely removed this claim of neutrality and created the perception that it legitimized Israel's unilateral actions. This undermined the trust not only of Palestinians but also a significant portion of the international community in the U.S. Consequently, the U.S.'s effectiveness in future peace talks will be seriously questioned, and a new, broader international mediation mechanism will likely be needed.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas stated that Trump's proposal to "take over" the Gaza Strip and permanently resettle its residents would be a "serious violation of international law." Countries like Malaysia also opposed the forced displacement of Palestinians and supported a two-state solution. This situation caused discomfort even among traditional U.S. allies.

In Trump's first term (2020), the Abraham Accords were signed, with the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan agreeing to normalize relations with Israel. The primary goal of these agreements was to reduce Middle Eastern tensions and normalize relations between Israel and "moderate" Arab states, motivated by a shared view of Iran as a strategic threat. The agreements aimed to provide access to advanced technologies and new trade opportunities. One of the main objectives of the Abraham Accords was to achieve Arab-Israeli normalization without resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This was a departure from the traditional "land for peace" principle. The agreements initially provided diplomatic and economic benefits.

However, the conflicts in Gaza changed the context of the Abraham Accords. Although the agreements largely survived, societal-level contacts waned, and popular opposition to Arab-Israeli normalization surged. This indicates that while the agreements were maintained at the state-to-state level, they were not accepted at the popular level, and the Palestinian issue remains an unresolved problem at the heart of the region. Saudi Arabia resisted joining the Abraham Accords without a clear roadmap for a Palestinian state. This revealed that the Palestinian issue remains a central obstacle to regional normalization and proved that this issue continues to be an indispensable condition for full normalization.

The participants and key impacts of the Abraham Accords are as follows:

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) joined the agreement in September 2020. Its main motivations were the Iranian threat, technology, and trade opportunities. Key benefits included diplomatic relations, visa waivers, direct flights, and a free trade agreement. After the Gaza War, while business momentum cooled, diplomatic ties were maintained, and a new land route emerged.

Bahrain joined in September 2020. Its motivations were the Iranian threat, security, and defense cooperation. Benefits included the first official security agreement, intelligence training, and drone sales. After the Gaza War, the Israeli ambassador left, but security ties were maintained.

Morocco joined in December 2020. U.S. recognition of Western Sahara and defense cooperation were key motivations. Benefits included the acquisition of advanced drones and air defense systems, and the preservation of cultural ties. After the Gaza War, Israeli tourism to Morocco declined, but automotive imports and academic cooperation continued.

Sudan joined in October 2020. Expectations of economic aid and the lifting of U.S. sanctions were its motivations. The normalization process was not completed, and economic benefits were anticipated. Due to internal turmoil, normalization did not progress.

Saudi Arabia has not yet joined. Potential motivations included balancing against Iran and utilizing Israeli technology for Vision 2030. Potential normalization and economic integration were expected. However, due to the condition of a clear roadmap for a Palestinian state, the normalization process stalled.

Relations with Gulf Countries: Economic Opportunities and New Partnerships

Trump's Middle East policy placed great importance on economic and commercial agreements. His first official trip resulted in over $2 trillion in agreements, including a $600 billion investment commitment from Saudi Arabia, a $1.2 trillion economic exchange agreement with Qatar, and $200 billion in commercial deals with the UAE. These agreements aimed to strengthen the U.S. economy and foster greater security and stability in the region. Traditionally, the U.S. presence in the Gulf was based on ensuring oil supply security and regional stability. However, Trump's visits and the signed agreements highlighted massive investments in next-generation sectors like artificial intelligence, cloud technologies, and infrastructure, in addition to defense agreements.

The agreements covered not only the defense sector but also artificial intelligence (AI) and technology. A $200 billion AI deal with the UAE and plans to build the U.S.'s largest data center outside the country were notable. Major tech companies like Oracle, Amazon, Palantir, and Qualcomm pledged to invest in AI and cloud technologies in Saudi Arabia and the UAE with the support of the Trump administration. This signifies the emergence of a new area of cooperation, combining the Gulf countries' economic diversification goals with U.S. technological leadership. This aligns with the Gulf countries' goals of "economic diversification" and positions the U.S. as a key technology partner in this process. This shift could fundamentally change the nature of U.S. long-term engagement in the region.

Aware of the need to diversify their economies, Gulf countries have focused on developing new areas of economic activity, such as renewable energy, technology (including AI and crypto), and modernized infrastructure. This ambitious vision aims to create commercial and and economic corridors across the Middle East, strengthening cross-border business ties and further integrating the region into the global economy.

Trump's foreign policy was based on a "transactional" approach and "economic benefit." This led to the signing of massive deals with Gulf countries. However, the Trump administration also implemented "protectionist trade policies" and "threats of high tariffs." These policies could lead to a "global recession" by reducing global trade and demand. While Gulf countries aim to diversify their economies and integrate into the global economy, Trump's policies could undermine their own economic goals. This highlights a contradiction: while large deals are made, broader economic policies could threaten these gains.

Syria and Lebanon: Shifting Balances

Trump's decision to lift sanctions on Syria and meet with Syria's interim president was a strategic and significant move, encouraged by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. This decision was welcomed in the Arab world and seen as a step towards the country's reconstruction and stability. This could lead to a massive influx of Gulf resources into the war-torn country. This reflects the U.S. policy of creating space for regional actors rather than direct intervention.

Trump's rhetoric of "the era of interventionism is over" and "the future belongs to regional solutions" provides a critical context for understanding developments in Syria and Lebanon. The lifting of Syria sanctions paves the way for Gulf countries (such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar paying off Syria's World Bank debt) to lead reconstruction efforts, rather than the U.S. playing a direct role. This reflects the U.S. tendency to reduce its "footprint" in the region and shift costs to other actors.

Israel's operations against Hezbollah significantly weakened the group, killing most of its leadership and devastating much of southern Lebanon. This led to Lebanon moving towards a more reform-oriented political leadership. U.S. policy achieved significant success in ensuring Israel's withdrawal from five points it occupied in southern Lebanon and pressing Lebanese authorities to consolidate their sovereignty by disarming both Hezbollah and armed Palestinian factions. Similarly, the weakening of Hezbollah and Lebanon's shift towards a more reformist leadership align with the U.S. strategy of reducing its burden in these countries and allowing regional actors to find solutions to their own problems.

Regional Actors' Perspectives: From Turkey to Others

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan appreciated U.S. President Donald Trump's efforts in achieving a ceasefire between Iran and Israel. Erdoğan stated that he expects a similar level of effort from Trump to help end the conflicts in Gaza and the Russia-Ukraine war. Turkey emphasized that it is making intensive efforts to increase its own energy resources and has not experienced any problems with natural gas supply from Iran. The U.S. State Department warned U.S. citizens in Turkey that negative sentiment towards U.S. foreign policy could trigger actions against U.S. or Western interests in the country.

Trump's goal of "re-establishing U.S. primacy" was perceived through different lenses by regional actors. While Israel and some Gulf allies (UAE, Qatar) welcomed the U.S.'s "muscular return" and economic agreements, this support was conditional (e.g., Saudi Arabia's Palestinian condition). Saudi Arabia and Qatar largely welcomed the U.S.'s "muscular return." Trump's visits resulted in billions of dollars in business deals and investments. However, Saudi Arabia expressed "deep concern" about the U.S. airstrikes but refrained from condemning them. Qatar expressed "regret" over the escalating tensions and urged all parties to exercise restraint.

NATO allies like Turkey, while appreciating Trump's ceasefire efforts, tended to act independently in line with their national security and energy interests and even warned about negative sentiments towards U.S. policy. The Iraqi government condemned the U.S. strikes, stating that the military escalation posed a grave threat to peace and security in the Middle East. Russia condemned the U.S. attacks as a "gross violation of international law" and claimed that some countries could supply Tehran with nuclear weapons. The UN Secretary-General expressed "grave alarm" about the risk of the conflict spiraling out of control and emphasized that "there is no military solution, the only path forward is diplomacy." Egypt warned of "grave repercussions" for expanding the Middle East conflict and urged a return to negotiations. This shows that U.S. actions in the region were met not with a single "regional reaction," but with multifaceted and often contradictory responses shaped by each country's own interests and concerns. This highlights the complexity and fragility of the U.S.'s leadership role in the region.

Trump's Legacy and Future Scenarios

The long-term consequences of the Trump administration's Middle East policies remain uncertain. While it may have slowed Iran's nuclear program, it could also have strengthened Tehran's resolve to acquire a nuclear weapon. The possibility that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu will not abandon his pursuit of regime change in Iran increases the risk of long-term instability and further demands for U.S. military commitments.

Trump's policies contain the seeds of a significant recalibration of the U.S. posture in the Middle East. Elements such as de-escalation, post-conflict stabilization, and economic/business-driven engagement could lead to a new era of stability and prosperity in the region. However, persistent conflict in Gaza and the fear of a potential war with Iran remain critical impediments to the region's transformation. Trump's policies are described as a "generational recalibration" in the region. This includes new strategic elements such as de-escalation, post-conflict stabilization, and economic engagement. These elements theoretically have the potential to lead the region to a more stable and prosperous future. However, the same sources state that "persistent conflict" (especially in Gaza) and "the fear of a potential war with Iran" are "critical impediments" to this transformation. This indicates that Trump's transactional approach cannot achieve full success without resolving the region's deep-rooted political and security issues. In other words, no matter how much economic and technological cooperation progresses, as long as political instability and the risk of conflict persist, the region's future will remain uncertain.

A future Trump administration could show continuity in its Middle East policy. It might aim to strike a lasting agreement with Iran that would take the nuclear weapons option off the table, reduce the risk of regional war, and encourage engagement with other regional countries based on normalized relations with GCC members. The goal of a historic tripartite agreement between Saudi Arabia and Israel would also continue. The focus would be on deepening ties with Gulf partners, including technology and artificial intelligence development.

Trump's "America First" approach aimed to reduce the U.S. burden in the region and encourage regional actors to take on more responsibility. However, U.S. foreign aid cuts and unilateral actions could create vacuums and increase the regional influence of rivals like China or BRICS. Trump's foreign aid cuts and disregard for "soft power" elements were part of his "America First" philosophy. This aimed to reduce the U.S. cost in the region and shift the burden to regional actors. However, the same sources state that this vacuum will be filled by "Europe, China, BRICS, and other MENA countries," which will "empower international competitors" and "undermine its own hard power interests." This reveals a paradox where burden-sharing could lead to unintended consequences that harm the U.S.'s own long-term strategic interests. In other words, the U.S. withdrawal or narrowing of engagement in the region might lead to rivals expanding their spheres of influence rather than the expected "burden-sharing."

Personal Opinion and Assessment: Through the Eyes of a Columnist

The Trump era Middle East policy was a bold and often controversial period that overturned traditional diplomatic norms. It is evident that his "transactional" approach yielded some tangible economic benefits. Especially the multi-billion dollar agreements with Gulf countries and collaborations in the technology sector created a new dynamic, aligning with the region's economic diversification goals. This demonstrates that the U.S. can exist in the region not only as a military power but also as an economic and technological partner.

However, this pragmatic approach came with serious costs. The unilateral decision on Jerusalem's status further complicated the Palestinian issue and completely eroded the U.S.'s image as an "unbiased mediator." While the Abraham Accords built diplomatic bridges between some Arab countries and Israel, recent developments in Gaza painfully showed that the Palestinian issue remains a central knot that needs to be untangled for regional stability. The increasing public backlash against normalization revealed how fragile diplomatic successes can be.

Iran policy, perhaps, was one of the most complex and risky areas. The withdrawal from the JCPOA and subsequent military interventions raised questions about the effectiveness of the "maximum pressure" strategy. The concern that it might have increased Tehran's motivation to acquire nuclear weapons, rather than completely eliminating Iran's nuclear program, highlights the potential for long-term instability. While ceasefires and negotiations are crucial, lasting peace seems difficult to achieve as long as fundamental distrust and mutual suspicion persist in the region.

Overall, Trump's legacy in the Middle East is noteworthy for breaking traditional foreign policy molds and creating new economic opportunities, while also being controversial for unilateral actions that risked deepening existing conflicts and harming the U.S.'s long-term strategic interests in the region. How a future U.S. administration manages this legacy will be a key factor determining the region's fate. While the potential for economic cooperation is high, true stability seems unattainable without resolving political and security issues. The region is still at a "turning point," and its future will be shaped by the actions of both regional actors and the U.S.

References

History

Interesting articles on history and science.

e-Mail

Content

historyzan@historyzan.com

Donate