KÜLPOLOGIKA

Breaking Deals, Building Alliances: The Trump Administration’s Middle East Strategy

Szerző: | dec 22, 2024 | Ázsia, Elemzés

In the early days of November, it has been proven that from 2025, the second Trump administration will shape U.S. and international politics. The Middle East region has been a highly focused territory in Washington’s eyes since the second half of the Cold War, and we can say that its importance hasn’t been shaken in the last 15-20 years either.

After 9/11 the the fight against terrorism and terrorists was always a high priority, and one of the main reasons why American military troops are all over the Middle Eastern states. Besides the military reasons, the economic interests are also forcing the United States to watch over the region’s stability and peace.

During the first Trump administration (2017-2020) multiple divisive actions were made by the president, which earned the disapproval – or support – of multiple states. To be able to predict what can come after 2025, under the second Trump administration, it is crucial to analyse the history of the president’s Middle East policy and also to understand what has changed in the region, compared to 2020, when the Republican government left the scene.

As we look back on the previous Trump administration and try to evaluate it, we can name many measures that Washington was involved in. Some were made by economic interests, others by military interests, and others to maintain the U.S.’s global status. In this article, I highlight the 5 most important (in my opinion) aspects of the first Trump administration and try to understand how can these aspects help us to predict the upcoming years and events.

The Abraham Accord

Although the Abraham Accord only took effect in 2020, it was one of the most important actions of the Trump administration. This document aims to create closer diplomatic relations between Israel, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain. It is a milestone in the light of Israel’s official recognition, because after Egypt and Jordan, the UAE and Bahrain became the 3rd and 4th Arab states to officially recognise and negotiate with Israel. This shift in the Arab states’ perspective was highly important in order to build stability and peace in the region and create a sustainable future for these states. Although some states – such as Saudi Arabia, Oman, Egypt and Jordan – had a positive opinion about the new accord, Iran and the Palestinian groups raised their voice against this action, and felt threatened and betrayed by this new document, which shook the unity of the Arab States.

Withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal

In 2018 Washington decided not to carry on any more with the Iran Nuclear Deal, which was created in the previous years. Officially the deal was: along with the European Union, the P5+1 nations consisted of the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France, China, Russia, and Germany. Iran has agreed to have its nuclear ambitions reduced in exchange for the easing of sanctions. The capabilities of Iran’s heavy-water reactors, centrifuges, and uranium enrichment system were subject to significant restrictions. The reasons behind the withdrawal were mainly from a military and security point of view. Since the United States had concerns about the real improvements in Iran’s military power, they decided to use the ‘maximum pressure’ policy, in order to keep Teheran under control.

Source: National Union for Democracy in Iran

Although most of the European States had a negative opinion of this radical action by Washington, and they were ready to stick with the deal even if the U.S. would leave it, the statistics proved that the Trump administration achieved its goal with the new rhetoric. Besides the fallback of oil exports and military expenditures, the average economic trends have also shown huge fallbacks under the ‘maximum pressure’ period. This radical move aimed to make it difficult for Teheran to keep the economic and military improvement, and show the world that the White House is not scared to use its economic influence, to reach its goals. The question that was raised multiple times in connection to this move is ‘What if other world powers will step up and fill the gap, left behind by the United States?’.

Jerusalem as the capital of Israel

In December 2017 Washington recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Although in the United Nations, more than 128 states voted against the recognition, the Trump administration felt urgent pressure to take this action through. The reason behind this move was to show the world that this very devised region could also be united in peace and stability. The history of Jerusalem is well-known all around the world. Centuries of wars were fought here between different religions, and none of the actors gave up on the right to own Jerusalem. Most of the religions in the Middle East are connected to the city, which makes this move by Trump even more sensitive. After Washington ordered to move of the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which can be seen as a symbolic action to celebrate the new capital, voices around the world were raised against this action.

Source: Tourist Israel

Besides Palestine, most of the Arab states, many European countries, Russia, and the important global actors around the world all saw this move as a wound on the international community and its values. Russia and Australia systematically rejected the recognition, although since they accepted the sovereignty of the state, they also accepted the fact that Israel is allowed to choose its own capital. This action by Washington was surely not one of the moves in the direction of peace and unity in the Middle East, because even since 2017, this case has divided most of the countries and created tension on the regional level.

Withdrawal from Syria

Syria has been a hot spot in the U.S. Middle East policy since 2011. The American military troops were fighting a 2 front war within the country, since not only the Assad regime was seen as an enemy here, but also ISIS. On the first front, Washington provided support for the anti-Assad military groups, in order to shake the government’s position and create a ‘democratic’ system within Syria. On the second front, after 2014, the United States fought against ISIS, the terror organisation.

In 2016 Donald Trump announced that they were going to cooperate with Moscow against ISIS. This statement was surprising since Russia was one of the main allies of the Assad regime, which means indirectly the two states conflicted within Syria. After Trump got in charge in 2017, 2 huge military strikes were ordered as a response to the use of chemical weapons by the Assad government, and Washington increased the support of the anti-Assad military groups. In 2018, American troops took over Raqqa, the ‘capital of ISIS’. In the same year, Trump announced the withdrawal of the military troops from the country.

Source: Disentangling from Syria’s civil war: the case for U.S. military withdrawal

This withdrawal was dividing even within the United States of America. Some academics and politicians saw more potential threats in this action, than advantages. The main arguments against the withdrawal were:

  • Leaving will open a vacuum for the U.S. rivals to take over
  • Leaving abandons the Kurds
  • Leaving will deny the U.S. ability to reshape states’ stability in a post-war period

It is important to highlight the fact that after the defeat of ISIS, the fight against the Assad regime would require a bigger military operation since Moscow stands beside the Syrian government. It also means that the above-mentioned vacuum was already filled (if there was ever a vacuum).

Arguments besides the withdrawal

  1. The risk of escalation
    1. Since the rise of pro-Assad powers in Syria changed the military balance, the stay of American troops could risk a potential escalation with the involvement of multiple military powers from abroad.
  2. Iran’s influence
    1. Although Iran’s proxy military group Hezbollah is mainly located in Lebanon, its influence in Syria is also important. It means a possible war between the Assad regime and the U.S. would straightly include a fight against Hezbollah and indirectly against Iran.
  3. Defeat of ISIS
    1. The defeat of ISIS was a unique opportunity for the Trump administration to withdraw from a country that is not their ally, and still announce the operation as a successful one. Since 9/11 the fight against terrorism has always been highly prioritized for Washington, and the defeat of ISIS was a huge milestone for them in this never-ending global war.
  4. Counterterrorism policy
    1. Since the original reason for the U.S. intervention was to fight against terrorism, after the defeat of ISIS it would be hard to explain the reasons behind keeping the military troops on the field. Also, the presence of soldiers could have been a reason for locals to strengthen their nationalistic feelings, and strengthen the local terrorist groups that were operated against Washington.

Assassination of Qasem Soleimani

Commander Qasem Soleimani was a highly-ranked military general, with a huge network within the Middle East region. The assassination of him was a very strong action in order to show power and strength. Javad Zarif – Iranian minister of foreign affairs – stated that Iran should take it into consideration to counterattack U.S. allies as a response to this action. The response from the world was unanimous. France, Germany, and Russia all disproved this action and said it was unpredictable and irresponsible. This action was again a case that could lead to escalation and a global military conflict in the region. Also, it was a great reason for the Iranian government to create unity within the society, against the U.S.

What can come after 2024?

Bad news for UNRWA and Palestinians

Since in 2018, the president cancelled the founding of the UNRWA agency. Although the Biden administration restored the funding in 2021, there is a huge chance for the cutback again in the upcoming years. The difference between 2018 and 2025 is the fact that nowadays the role of UNRWA is more important than ever before. The international community, and mainly the neighbouring states must prepare for the founding cutback because once the agency isn’t able to fulfil its role, 10thousands of people will rely on the International Community and its help

A Boost for Gulf Oil Ambitions over the Climate Goals

Since the Trump administration favours fossil fuels, it could boost the Gulf states’ economies reliant on hydrocarbon exports. Although the increase in the markets will be beneficial for the Gulf States, it is less likely to change the states’ long-term plans on net-zero emissions and clean energy. As global financial flows increasingly favour green energy investments, Gulf nations recognize that remaining competitive means advancing in clean energy and sustainable development, balancing hydrocarbon ambitions with essential steps toward a diversified, resilient future. Trump will likely be more responsive to Saudi and Emirati positions, supporting any military action against the Houthis by the Arab coalition and the internationally recognized government with expanded intelligence and logistical support. This support may be tied to larger military and trade deals with Gulf states.

Military conflicts all over the region

Trump can focus on intensifying sanctions on the Houthis and their supporters, pressing the international community to join these efforts. In the past few years, multiple military actions were carried out by the Houthis against not just the U.S., but many Western states’ interests. While this strategy may worsen Yemen’s humanitarian crisis, Trump could view it as an acceptable cost to achieve his strategic objectives and show power on the field. This approach could also reduce short-term chances for a political solution but may shift the balance of power on the ground.

Under Donald Trump’s second presidential term, continuity rather than change will almost certainly dominate U.S. policy toward the Middle East. Washington has no intention of ending its unconditional support for Israel, it will continue sending arms shipments and allow Netanyahu to continue its fight against Hamas, and the Gaza region, although voices are getting stronger against Israel since the fights in Gaza are turning into fights against shadows and innocents, which questions the aim of this fight. Does Israel still fight against Hamas, or what happens in the Gaza region is simply just genocide?

Sources: