January 2, 2024 - 1:00pm
During the four erratic years of Donald Trump’s presidency, the underlying conflicts in the Middle East were kept on a (relative) simmer. Joe Biden’s election was supposed to herald the return of sensible decision-making, but chaos has instead sprung up in the region during his tenure. How Middle East policy might change in a hypothetical second Trump term is difficult to judge, especially because of the thoroughly inchoate nature of the ex-president’s vision for foreign intervention.
Under Trump, the US had a two-pronged message: “Don’t poke the eagle, and let’s make a deal.” On one hand, his administration tapped into the “Jacksonian” tradition of using military might to deter foreign aggression and strike back if the national interest is threatened. On the other, it also embraced a realpolitik approach of forging alliances based on strategic interest.
US airstrikes pummelled Isis, and focused military efforts took out high-level targets (such as the Iranian general Qasem Soleimani). At the same time, the Trump White House tried to solidify an anti-Iran coalition while diplomatically integrating Israel into the greater Middle East. Fostering ties with Saudi Arabia was a central part of Trump’s Middle East policy, and his administration oversaw deals normalising the relationship of Israel with some of its regional neighbours, including Morocco and the United Arab Emirates.
Conversely, Biden’s approach to the Middle East has been defined by a combination of Woodrow Wilson’s internationalism and the idealism of the antiwar 1972 Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern. Biden entered office pledging to make Saudi Arabia a “pariah” state and immediately set about trying to improve relations with Iran.
This combination might have exacerbated instability in the region. The chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan suggested that the hand at the tiller was in fact unsteady. The Biden administration’s growing security commitments to Ukraine have aimed a Klieg light on the soft spots of the American defence-industrial infrastructure. The President’s own limited appearances and public displays of confusion have only added to the sense of a power vacuum. The perception that the United States was overtaxed, adrift, and wracked by internal divisions was an important strategic backdrop for Hamas’s 7 October assault on Israel and recent Houthi attacks on cargo ships in the Red Sea.
If he were to regain the Oval Office, Trump might be pulled in conflicting directions. One of the most prominent contemporary exponents of a Jacksonian foreign policy, Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, has called for strikes against Houthi helicopters and drones in order to protect shipping lanes in the Red Sea. It is not hard to see Trump returning to those hawkish roots and launching strikes against Houthi rebels and other Iran proxies, particularly when his allies in Washington are advocating for similar responses. That targeted military action could intertwine with elements from Trump’s past record — backing Israel while also assembling a coalition to restrain Iran.
But there is also a chance that a second Trump term could see a more retrenchment-oriented approach — less “don’t poke the eagle” and more the “come home, America” that was George McGovern’s slogan. During Trump’s time in office, defence spending swelled. However, some in Trump’s orbit now suggest a more sweeping reduction of the military budget. Appointed acting secretary of defense after the 2020 presidential election, Christopher C. Miller has been mentioned by Trump himself as a possible Pentagon chief in a second Trump term. In his recent memoir, Miller mused that the defence budget could be cut in half, a reduction that would form a major break from the instincts that guided Trump’s first term and could send geopolitical shockwaves around the globe.
Trump thrives on conflict and ambiguity, and MAGA Republicans are far from united on foreign policy. What “America first” means for the Middle East could be very much up for grabs, and the future of the region may depend on it.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWould question how much a calculation of US overstretch and thinking played into 7/10 Hamas planning. Probably had far more to do with wanting to spike the Abraham accords, awareness of how divided Israeli society appeared, and the simple logic that the extensive planning creates a momentum of it’s own – they needed to deploy before plans uncovered etc. As it is the actions US has taken – carrier strike forces – has almost certainly limited Iranian and Hezbollah involvement to irritations.
Of course the Totalitarians would be delighted if Trump led a retreat. Given however he knows he’d be a lame-duck domestically quite quickly – always an element of this with 2nd term Presidents but more so with him as he polarises so much – if he wins he might quickly appreciate his historical epithet going to more in international relations. He doesn’t need to think about winning again. At which point the retreat/running away narrative less appealing. Re-arming the US to make it great again perhaps more what he’ll come to have in mind?
Much may depend on who he picks as SoS and NSA if he wins. He/We were fortunate with his selections last time round. They did provide a coherence and continuity that second time around could be absent and then it’s all bets off.
In foreign policy Trump is clearly a Palmerstonian, which is a good thing. People who think they can change the world for the better invariably make things worse – as the career of your great hero so profoundly demonstrates.
trump seems to be pretty transparent. both of the author’s takes on the first term seem obvious, right? so why would someone think that a second term would be different? if you were representing a foreign player, and you think there is a pretty-good chance that trump will win, wouldn’t you try to consolidate gains, and then play “let’s make a deal”?
Let’s put this into context:
During Trump’s time in office,defence spending swelled.During the last several administrations, spending on everything swelled. Under Trump, there were also no new wars. Trump is not an ideologue, nor is he beholden to the moneyed interests that own DC. That’s a huge reason why people in both parties don’t like him.As to the Middle East, his time saw the Abraham Accords, the embassy moving to Jerusalem, and a few shots across the bow at people whose attention needed to be gained. We did not have world war 3, as the Cassandra wing predicted. We did not have authoritarian rule, either. And federal agencies were not marshaled to go after laypeople. He’s hardly without flaws, but the option is more of the same.
A big part of the reason for the current conflict is the stupidity and incompetence of the Obama/Biden policy of appeasement towards Iran.
The Iranian regime has even less popular legitimacy than others in the region and urgently needs to be overthrown. It ought to be obvious to everyone that there will be no lasting peace there until the ayatollahs are gone. That’s much more likely to happen with Trump in the WH. Bring it on.
Yeah cos doing exactly the same thing in Iraq for the Israelis and their neocon mouthpieces worked really well for the US. Why not do it again on an even more important country? Nobody owes Israel anything including America. If they want to destroy Iran then they should go for it themselves
Iraq was done more for the Saudis than the Israelis. Same with Libya.
On a point of specific detail, many articles have vilified Trump for implementing the decision (not his decision) to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. As I understand it this decision was originally made by Clinton who, like all his successors until Trump, were too lily-livered to put it into effect.
The decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem was made by the US Congress in a bill that became law without the signature of president Bill Clinton and over his opposition. The law included a provision that allowed the president to waive the move, which arguably was the only thing that made the law constitutional, as it infringed on the president’s power to conduct foreign policy. George W. Bush and Barack Obama continued Bill Clinton’s policy of not moving the embassy.
Thanks for your clarification.
Broadly speaking, a 2nd Trump administration is likely to be more nationalist and less internationalist, more interests based and less ideology based. Beyond that, it’s difficult to say. The man is, as ever, defined by his brashness and unpredictability. Moreover, domestic realities will overshadow the entire administration. The overwhelming likelihood is that the other side would never easily accept that Trump won and try to undermine his administration through legal or whatever means they could. By the same token, Trump himself is likely to be as much if not more focused on retribution against his political and media enemies than he will any sort of governance.
Since he’s still unstable and unpredictable, it will likely lead to some level of hesitation from America’s enemies. Who knows how far the man might go if he’s provoked. Gambling on Trump to show restraint is a bad bet. On the other hand, America First is unlikely to inspire international solidarity with allies, giving China/Russia an opportunity to drive a wedge between America and its client states. His unpredictability is unhelpful here as well, though for what it’s worth, Trump is far more popular with America’s important Asian allies than he is with Europeans.
At best, Trump will pull back from unnecessary and expensive foreign commitments and resist the MIC’s instinct to intervene everywhere possible and we’ll have a less interventionist, less ideological, more pragmatic policy agenda. At worst, he might use the military less like a police force and more like a mafia protection racket. Awful lot of accidents at sea these days, it’d be a shame if anything happened to those oil tankers, seems that it’d be worth a lot to avoid those accidents *wink wink*.
“The overwhelming likelihood is that the other side would never easily accept that Trump won”
There has only been one serious attempt to delegitimize a US presidential election result result and it wasn’t by the Democrats. There is no reason to suggest they will start now.
Trump, on the other hand, is still trying to pretend he didn’t get an absolute shellacking in 2020 and there are some here gullible enough to believe it and act on his revenge fantasies. Deluded fools but there are enough of them to make a lot of trouble.
You’re kidding, right?
What part are you confused about, sport?
They did try in 2016 to ‘appeal to the conscience’ of the electors to change their vote, and a few did, notably Trump actually gained a couple extra electors. None of it mattered of course and nothing illegal took place, but it was bad optics. The other side then spent four years trying to link Trump to Russian election interference despite there being no evidence Trump knew what the Russians were doing or that the Russians themselves actually did anything but circulate a few bogus facebook posts to try to influence people in a similar manner to the average misleading political ad. What Trump did in 2020 was, in his mind, a retaliation for that, whether he believed he actually won the election or not. This is how conflicts escalate in seriousness over time, a series of provocations and reprisals that grow in scope and in seriousness. I don’t excuse Trump. I personally wish he’d go away as he’s damaging the populist movement at this point. I don’t excuse the other side either. I hope you’re right and they don’t further escalate the conflict, but I’m not encouraged by what I’ve seen lately.
We have to hope that the Supreme Court rules in Trump’s favour on presidential immunity. That would require foregoing criminal charges against Biden, but he’s headed straight to a nursing home from the White House anyway. Immunity will be important so Trump can get on with his work without continuing harassment from Democrat prosecutors.
So you think Trump is literally above the law?
Trump hates to lose. He takes pride in the Abraham Accords and the US embassy in Jerusalem. A lot of his base is pro-Israel. I don’t think there are any MAGA people in the pro-Hamas / anti-Israel protests in the USA.
Trump would green light Israel’s actions in Gaza, assuming there is a Gaza left. He likes the Saudi’s and would push for an Israel – Saudi relationship to counter Iran, which he despises. If anyone cares to remember, following a Syrian chemical attack on its own people, President Trump ordered a cruise missile attack on the Syrian base responsible.
There would be no political appointed staff harking for a Gaza cease fire in a Trump administration. He would shut off money going to UNRWA and to the PLO. I don’t think he would tolerate closure of the Red Sea and expect retaliation for attacks on merchant shipping.
As for cutting the defense budget, expect all DEI programs and those staffing them to go.
I had an unusual sense of optimism for 2024, at least a few days ago…
…but there is absolutely no chance of another Trump presidency; the American federal State will not permit it.
Biden will stagger on by default until the moment when the Ukraine cannot go on in the war, and Israel needs to go it alone again…
…then Kamala will become the first identity politics POTUS. I give that 18-24 months from today.
And of course being the greatest democracy in the world what could we expect other than ‘the American federal state will not permit it’
Obama was the first identity politics president. The powers fished him out of some obscure Chicago swamp and called everyone who opposed his stated policies a racist.
There are various ways that the American federal state can prevent Trump winning. What will they be planning?
They could do it legally (e.g. run Michelle Obama instead of Biden.) Or-
1. Rig the mailed ballot counts in key states (like last time)
2. Expose Republican cheating and declare the election void
3. A false-flag terrorist attack and declare martial law
The best defense Republicans have against #1 and #2 is to legislate election integrity, or to win more votes than the margin of mail-ballot fraud.
For #3, the FBI have become proficient at arranging terrorist attacks after a successful false flag insurrection on J6 and a semi-successful Whitmer kidnapping.
Considering that US cities are overrun with hundreds of thousands of military-age foreign nationals, terrorism is a highly likely event in 2024 to forestall any kind of Trump electoral victory. Don’t think they won’t do it. They will do anything to “Defend Democracy”.
Some good points, but Michelle Obama will never be president. She doesn’t want to be. Others do. Not to mention that she would be worse than Kamala Harris, and that’s terrible.
No, continue to be optimistic… i.e. pray for a Trump second term
The peace deal between Saudi ,Egypt and Israel that was about to materialise, was destroyed by oct 7 .It was set up during Trump admin.
The withdrawal from Afghanistan the same. Would a Trump admin have handled it better? Who knows but doubtful.
Trump wants to take US out of NATO,
Probably not very helpful.
Kushner was paid 2 billion by the Saudi government after his work getting the Prince out of trouble over the Murder of Wash post Journalist .
Trump certainly would have handled Afghanistan better. He would have ensured continued support for the Afghan government and kept troops there until peace was assured.
There’s absolutely zero evidence that Trump wants out of NATO. You’ve been reading too much Democrat propaganda.
Question-
Why is the US navy spending billions to protect shipping lanes in the Red Sea from–Iran sponsored– Houthi attacks?
Most of that shipping is–from China–going to China’s customers–in Europe
Very little (if anything) is going to the US
Trump will have no choice but to cut spending following the bloated deficits from Biden, but military stockpiles will have to be rebuilt since so much has been blown up over Ukraine. Four more years of pax Trump will hopefully allow the military to rebuild at a relatively modest cost.
If Trump was the President, this would not be happening on this scale. I don’t care for the Orange Man, but the current bad actors are scared of him and what he would do. Perfect way to keep folks in line.
Who do you think is scared of Trump? He’s a clown and his asskissing of Putin, Ji and Jong were a national humiliation for the United States. They know that he’ll do nothing other than what he is told.
Donald Trump’s strength is that he doesn’t lock himself into a position but leaves things open. He decides what is best at the time by taking small steps and seeing how they work out. It’s how business deals are done, and how governments should work as well (but don’t).
You obviously know nothing about business or government.
No wonder you are a Trump cultist! Did you get your degree from Trump U?!?!? LOL!