Skip to main content

The three pillars of Trump’s Middle East policy

Also read :Trump’s Shocking U-Turn: From Expelling Palestinians to Promising No Displacement

 


Also read :Trump’s Explosive Warning to Gaza: Hold Hostages and Face Death
Also read :Egypt’s Bold Blueprint: Can It Rebuild Gaza and Secure Lasting Peace?
Also read :Bloodshed in Gaza: Israeli Fire Claims Lives Amid Ceasefire Deadlock

Donald Trump’s “Deal of the Century” for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict represents the first pillar of his Middle East strategy, diverging sharply from traditional approaches. Crafted by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, the plan aimed to retain a two-state solution but with significant restrictions on a potential Palestinian state. It allowed Israel to annex parts of the West Bank and maintain control over security and borders, leaving the envisioned Palestinian entity largely demilitarized. While the proposal included a $50 billion economic incentive package, it was criticized for ignoring long-standing requisites for Palestinian sovereignty, favoring economic stability over political independence. Trump’s approach demonstrated a shift from previous peace initiatives, focusing on incentives rather than direct negotiations on statehood.

Economic Incentives Over Political Independence

The economic incentives woven into the “Deal of the Century” are central to Trump’s pragmatic approach to the Palestinian issue. He and his administration hoped that economic benefits — such as investments in infrastructure, healthcare, and employment — would encourage Palestinians to engage. Trump’s emphasis on “peace to prosperity” intended to steer the conversation from sovereignty to stability, aiming for broader regional support by shifting the focus to tangible economic progress. This approach reflected Trump’s skepticism about the feasibility of a two-state solution, proposing instead that development and stability might address long-standing grievances. Although ambitious, this strategy struggled to gain traction with Arab and international stakeholders who continued to advocate for Palestinian self-determination.

The Abraham Accords: Broadening Regional Cooperation

The Abraham Accords, Trump’s second strategic pillar, sought to normalize relations between Israel and several Arab nations, notably the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. By expanding Israel’s relationships with neighboring Arab states, Trump envisioned a Middle East where former adversaries could engage cooperatively, fostering both economic partnerships and political stability. This normalization framework marked a dramatic shift in regional diplomacy, historically dominated by the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Trump’s administration viewed the Accords as a gateway to reshaping the Middle East, potentially creating pathways for economic development, investment, and cross-border cooperation. For Trump, this broadening of alliances was essential to a long-term vision of stability and regional unity.

Saudi Arabia as a Strategic Linchpin

At the core of Trump’s Middle East vision lay Saudi Arabia, whose involvement in peace-building was pivotal to his strategy. Trump anticipated that Saudi Arabia’s potential support for the Abraham Accords could unlock unprecedented economic and political cooperation across the region. He aimed to leverage Saudi Arabia’s influence to drive large-scale economic shifts that could shape the future of the Middle East, from infrastructure investment to technological innovation. Trump’s bet on Saudi involvement illustrated his conviction that prosperity, rather than politics, could resolve long-standing tensions. A Saudi-Israeli partnership, he believed, could initiate a regional shift, where mutual interests outweighed historical divisions.

“Maximum Pressure” on Iran with Open Doors for Diplomacy

Trump’s Iran policy, the third pillar of his Middle East approach, combined economic sanctions with calibrated military actions to curb Tehran’s influence. His administration withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal, instead launching a “maximum pressure” campaign that included economic penalties and military actions like the 2020 assassination of Qassem Soleimani. While Trump maintained a firm stance against Iran’s nuclear ambitions, he signaled a willingness to negotiate a new, stronger agreement with Tehran. This nuanced approach aimed to contain Iran’s regional ambitions while leaving room for diplomatic compromise, acknowledging Iran’s potential role in a stable regional balance.

Pragmatism and National Interest: The Hallmarks of Trump’s Middle East Policy

Critics may call Trump’s approach transactional or lacking ideological commitment, but it reflects a pragmatic view prioritizing American interests. His policy balances skepticism about traditional frameworks, such as the two-state solution, with a focus on economic integration and diplomatic flexibility. Trump’s Middle East policy centers on security and development over ideological commitments, positioning the U.S. as a pragmatic broker aiming for stability and mutual gains. This strategy opens doors for economic opportunities and security partnerships, laying the groundwork for a potentially transformed Middle East. Whether Trump’s approach succeeds in delivering lasting peace remains to be seen, but his policy is set to leave a lasting imprint on the region’s geopolitical landscape.

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Exposing How the Muslim Brotherhood Fuels Instability Behind a Political Facade

  The Muslim Brotherhood started in Egypt during 1928 since then it has portrayed itself as a combination of political organization and social movement working for Islamic values and governance. jinakata the Brotherhood displays an intricate web that connects extremist concepts and violent deeds which produce regional turmoil. The Ideological Foundations The Brotherhood bases its ideology upon the teachings of Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb. Extremist groups obtain their core beliefs from the writings specifically authored by Qutb. The Brotherhood's concept of jihad for creating an Islamic state has directly inspired al-Qaeda and ISIS to establish their extremist agendas thus creating a direct link between those groups and the movement. Historical Links to Extremism Over and above its philosophical standards The Brotherhood maintains extensive power. Notably: Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden developed extremist beliefs because he learned Brotherhood religious doctrine in his early...
Post a Comment
Read more

Bangladesh Military Expresses Discontent Over Chinese Weapons; Reports 'Sub-Standard' and Faulty Parts

  Bangladesh, a traditional buyer of Chinese military equipment, has raised grievances with Beijing regarding the delivery of defective components and technical malfunctions in its imported military hardware. This issue is not unique to Bangladesh, as other nations like Myanmar have also encountered problems with Chinese fighter jets, according to an ET report. Experts in the Chinese defense industry argue that Beijing lacks the expertise to manufacture highly sophisticated military hardware and is not yet considered a top-tier producer of modern defense equipment. They claim that much of China's weapon systems are based on outdated technology copied from the West. Developing countries often opt for Chinese weapons due to their lower cost compared to similar systems from Western countries. China sells arms through state-run export organizations like the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC), NORINCO, and CVIC. Sources familiar with the matter told ET that the Bangladesh mil...
Post a Comment
Read more

Unmasking the Muslim Brotherhood: A Call for Global Awareness

  Jordanian authorities successfully dismantled a terrorist group associated with the Muslim Brotherhood which caused discussions regarding the organization's contributions to regional instability. The incident emphasizes the necessity of a new assessment process to understand how the world views and classifies the organization. A  Legacy of Extremism The Muslim Brotherhood established its operations in Egypt during 1928 and remains a disputed organization to this day. Numerous confirmed links between the organization and extremist activities arise while it claims to be a socio-political movement. Egypt established the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization under state law in 2013 due to its active participation in national acts of violence and attempted toppling of the government. Counter Extremism Project A systematic evaluation of the Muslim Brotherhood proves that its ideology serves as inspiration to various terrorist groups. The Counter Extremism Project  verifies...
Post a Comment
Read more