President Trump has been quite critical of the Middle Eastern policies pursued by former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and there’s a rationale behind it. The Obama administration saw significant developments, such as the ascent of the Muslim Brotherhood and political Islam, the bolstering of Iran’s power, and the emergence of Islamic states in Iraq and Syria. Notably, the October 7th terrorist attacks in Israel and the ongoing conflict in Gaza occurred during that period.
In stark contrast, Trump’s initial tenure was marked by efforts that seemed to enhance stability in the region. He focused on dismantling the Islamic State, mended relationships between Gulf states and Israel, and established local deterrence through a show of military might.
Looking ahead to a potential second term, Trump should aim to steer clear of the missteps made by his predecessor, particularly in addressing Iran and the political Islamist movement. A critical aspect of this is avoiding public disagreements with the Israeli government and reaffirming a strong position against Iran, as well as rebuilding the deterrence that seems to have weakened under the Biden administration.
This means he may, perhaps, need to confront the isolationist sentiments within his own administration.
Key officials, such as the director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and deputy director of the Middle East Michael Dimino, are advocating for reduced U.S. intervention in the region. Yet, this reluctance is perceived by many as a handicap for effective influence in the Middle East.
Trump’s rhetoric often communicates a philosophy of “peace through strength,” yet some actions paint a different picture. For instance, the U.S. recently halted airstrikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen after they assured they would refrain from attacking American ships. There were also lapses in holding Iran accountable for the Houthis’ actions. During Trump’s recent Saudi visit, rockets were launched over Saudi airspace, showing a lapse in regional security.
Reports suggested the operation was costly, and claims of the inability to secure air superiority strike as odd, especially considering the U.S. defense budget dwarfs that of other nations combined.
Additionally, Trump seemed to shy away from discussing Israeli developments during his Middle Eastern tour, which is troubling given Israel’s pivotal role in maintaining deterrence in the region. While the U.S. has previously curtailed attacks on the Houthis, Israel has carried out significant military actions against Iranian assets, demonstrating the ongoing need for a supportive ally.
The danger in these policies is that adversaries, particularly Iran, may start to disregard U.S. statements altogether.
Iran, for instance, has downplayed assertions regarding its nuclear policy, defying the Trump administration’s stance against nuclear enrichment. Iranian leaders, including the Supreme Leader, have publicly dismissed discussions with the U.S. as trivial. There have even been proclamations about maintaining their nuclear rights alongside vocal anti-American sentiments.
This assertiveness might seem surprising given Iran’s economic struggles and military losses, but the leadership appears keen to exploit perceived vulnerabilities in U.S. policy while advancing their nuclear agenda as a means of survival.
Trump tends to rely on a combination of economic incentives and sanctions to influence policy, which may resonate with Gulf nations focused on stability and prosperity. However, history indicates that ideologically driven entities like Iran respond more effectively to credible threats.
Indeed, Trump illustrated this notion when he ordered the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, leading to noticeable declines in Iranian proxy activities. This action, as stated by military leaders, effectively re-established deterrence.
However, it seems that many of Trump’s isolationist advisers might not grasp this concept. For instance, Gabbard has expressed concerns that bolstering U.S. arms in the area could spark larger conflicts with Iran, a rationale reminiscent of the missteps from the Obama and Biden administrations that contributed to regional instability.
The notion that peace can be achieved through reduced military presence is fundamentally flawed. Historically, peace has often resulted from a dominant power’s firm control, as illustrated in eras like Pax Romana and Pax Britannica. Stability tends to erode once that dominant force begins to diminish. In fact, Soleimani’s elimination underscored the necessity of decisive action: aggressive posturing often leads to subservience, while conciliatory moves may invite further aggression.
Currently, there are mixed signals from the White House regarding sanctions against Iran, which might only serve to empower the Islamic Republic further.
In a similar vein, Biden’s handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal illuminated the dangers of signaling weakness. This vacillating stance has encouraged adversaries, like Russia, to make bold moves, such as the invasion of Ukraine.
Many of Trump’s isolationist advisers maintain that the U.S. can’t effectively police global affairs, despite having unparalleled military and economic resources. They often overlook the fact that an order led by the U.S. remains far more appealing to much of the world compared to alternatives posed by powers like China. In the Middle East, Israel largely executes operations against Iran, and maintaining these partnerships is crucial for sustaining influence without overextending American reach.
If Trump aspires to cultivate peace during his potential second term, there are certainly lessons from his first term that he should heed. Otherwise, he risks repeating the same pitfalls that characterized his predecessor’s approach.
