Research & Commentary Results

President Donald Trump is focused on realizing two transformative breakthroughs that his predecessors failed to accomplish: an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict, centered on a tripartite US-Saudi-Israeli deal, and an agreement between the US and Iran. Both would be historic achievements. So far, however, progress in each case has proven difficult and plodding.

The leaked Signal chat among top US administration officials discussing military strikes against the Houthis laid bare the central problems with Trump 2.0’s nascent national security approach: a strong inclination to prioritize tactics and propaganda in statecraft without a clear and practical strategic framework to deal with the biggest challenges in the world and in the Middle East.

Iran is accumulating enough near-weapons-grade enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon within weeks or months, not years. President Donald Trump, having withdrawn the United States in 2018 from the nuclear deal that would have postponed that possibility, is now appealing for negotiations with Tehran. But in the Middle East, the nuclear question does not concern only Iran.

President Donald Trump’s administration dialed up its use of military power in the Middle East this past week just as it took more steps to dismantle American institutions central to advancing peace and stability through diplomacy.

While most media attention was focused on its global economic policy moves, the Trump administration continued to keep the Middle East high on its agenda this past week, with the president sending a letter to Iran’s supreme leader and his team directly engaging with the Palestinian group Hamas. This continued engagement on the region’s top two strategic questions, Iran and Arab-Israel affairs, contrasted with America’s hands-off approach to Syria, which saw some troubling violence.

President Donald Trump’s joint address to Congress on March 4 doubled down on his disruptive and contentious domestic policy agenda. Foreign policy, including Trump’s approach to the Middle East, was mostly an afterthought. Though he said little about Middle East policy in his speech, Trump’s team is taking an irregular approach on the twin issues of Israel-Arab ties and Iran that may not produce the stability and prosperity it seeks.

Ibrahim Dalalsha, founder and director of Horizon Center for Political Studies and Media Outreach, and Shira Efron, research director at the Israel Policy Forum, join host Brian Katulis to discuss policy developments in the devastating war between Israel and Hamas, and how Israelis and Palestinians can work together toward a peaceful resolution of conflict.

Afghanistan’s neighborhood is in the midst of a consequential restructuring of its security architecture. Key regional actors Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and China have been continuing to adjust their defense plans and security partnerships to meet the growing threats posed by domestic and cross-border terrorism. At the same time, these four countries have also been looking for new ways to fill the vacuum in southern Asia left by the United States military’s departure from Afghanistan.

Some analysts try to explain Trump’s Middle East rhetoric as an effort to provoke a new type of conversation and to break the mold. But one unconventional source that helps explain Trump’s tactics is pro wrestling, in which the actions are understood to be illusory but still prompt a response from all sides.

With the signing of a presidential memorandum on Feb. 4, the administration of Donald Trump has returned to a “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran, but circumstances have changed drastically since the policy of intensified sanctions was originally crafted during his first term. Regional geopolitics will present the White House with a new set of variables, while changes in the petroleum markets will affect how the administration approaches sanctions on oil exports.

This massive distraction of the Trump administration’s Gaza non-plan and the even more serious move of dismantling America’s ability to shape and influence events abroad together carry three risks for the Middle East.

Observing the unfolding of President Donald Trump’s second term from the Middle East is as confusing and disorienting as it must be from the United States. In Palestine, Egypt, and Jordan, urgent concern is focused on Trump’s surprise plan to take over the Gaza Strip, displace its population, and rebuild it as the “Riviera of the Middle East.” In Israel, the right wing is extremely pleased with Trump’s gift, but they don’t know what he has planned for the West Bank. In the Arab Gulf monarchies, leaders are generally happy to be dealing with Trump again but are alarmed by the recklessness of his Gaza plan and concerned about the potential impact his energy and tariff policies could have on their economies.

The Trump administration’s Middle East approach in its first three weeks back in office was filled with plenty of sound and fury. It’s still too soon to tell whether all of the noise signifies much of anything for the region, yet there are few promising signs of a smooth ride ahead.

President Trump’s Gaza ploy is really aimed at the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia most directly, to rebuild Gaza and cozy up to Israel.

Nearly three years on, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has reshaped trade and investment in the energy sector, leading to an increase in Gulf imports of Russian oil and a sharp rise in the region’s hydrocarbon exports to Europe as well as further fueling the growth of Gulf investment in renewable energy projects located in and targeting the continent.