The Middle East remains a critical and complex theater for U.S. foreign policy, and the second administration of President Donald Trump has introduced a distinct approach often referred to as the “Emerging Trump Doctrine.” This doctrine marks a departure from traditional U.S. engagement in the region, emphasizing limited military involvement, economic interests, and pragmatic, deal-driven diplomacy. This article investigates the key elements, impacts, and controversies surrounding this doctrine, supported by recent data and policy developments.
Core Principles of the Trump Doctrine
Minimizing Military Engagements and Prioritizing Negotiated Settlements
The Trump administration has demonstrated a clear preference for ending conflicts and avoiding prolonged military commitments. This is evident in its approach to conflicts such as Gaza and Yemen, where military campaigns were short-lived and quickly followed by diplomatic efforts. For example, the military campaign against the Houthis in Yemen lasted only weeks before shifting to negotiations, underscoring a policy to secure American interests without deep entanglement. President Trump explicitly stated a preference for negotiated nuclear agreements with Iran over military action, reflecting a strategic shift from intervention to diplomacy. “I would prefer that to bombing the hell out of it,” Trump remarked on Iran negotiations1.
Economic Focus and Bilateral Deals
A hallmark of the Trump Doctrine is the “America First” approach, which prioritizes direct economic deals and maximizing U.S. economic benefits abroad. During recent Middle East tours, Trump secured over $2 trillion in investments and high-stakes aviation deals, signaling a pivot towards economic diplomacy. In 2024, U.S. trade with the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region reached $141.7 billion, with a $19 billion trade surplus, reflecting growing economic ties under this policy1.
Strategic Realignment and Reduced Reliance on Traditional Allies
The doctrine also reflects a nuanced recalibration of alliances. While Israel remains a strategic ally, the Trump administration appears to be reducing Israel’s primacy in U.S. Middle East policy. This is indicated by direct negotiations with groups like Hamas and the Houthis without Israeli approval and prioritizing U.S. national interests over Israeli concerns. Such moves have reportedly caused friction with Israeli leadership, particularly Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has responded with more aggressive regional policies12.
Implementation and Regional Impact
Diplomatic Initiatives and Conflict Resolution Efforts
Building on the Abraham Accords from the first Trump term, the administration seeks to expand normalization agreements between Israel and its neighbors. Efforts to end the Gaza conflict and secure hostage releases demonstrate a pragmatic use of diplomacy backed by the threat of force if necessary. However, tangible progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains limited, with some provocative proposals like the “Gaza Riviera” concept yet to materialize1.
Military Actions and Deterrence
While avoiding large-scale deployments, the Trump Doctrine does not eschew military force entirely. Targeted strikes, such as those against Syrian chemical weapons facilities and the Houthis, serve as deterrents and signals of U.S. resolve without committing to nation-building or regime change. The administration expects regional partners to assume greater responsibility for security, effectively “leading from behind”2. In June 2025, a major U.S. precision strike destroyed Iran’s Fordow enrichment facility and related nuclear infrastructure, following an Israeli preemptive strike, signaling a more assertive military posture within the doctrine3.
Economic and Strategic Outcomes
The emphasis on economic engagement has led to increased U.S. exports to the region and significant investment deals. This approach aligns with the administration’s broader goal of strengthening U.S. technological and economic superiority amid global competition from China and Russia. The strategic arms deal with Saudi Arabia, independent of Israeli normalization, exemplifies this recalibration towards transactional diplomacy25.
Criticisms and Challenges
Critics argue that the Trump Doctrine’s limited military engagement and transactional diplomacy risk leaving unresolved conflicts and empowering autocratic regimes. The reduced centrality of Israel in U.S. policy and the administration’s willingness to negotiate with groups like Hamas have raised concerns about long-term regional stability. Additionally, the doctrine’s zigzagging style and mixed messages contribute to uncertainty among allies and adversaries alike14.
In the Middle East, the application of this emerging foreign policy doctrine is clear. On the diplomatic front, Trump has repeatedly called for ending conflicts. Like Ukraine, he has placed a premium on ending the conflict in Gaza, in both cases applying considerable pressure to traditional American partners. He has also expressed a desire to build off the first-term success of his Abraham Accords normalization agreements between Israel and its neighbors by facilitating further agreements in the region. And he has prioritized a deal with Iran regarding its nuclear program. The contours and feasibility of achieving any such deal remain a point of debate, but the president’s prioritization of a negotiated settlement over military action is clear. “I would prefer that to bombing the hell out of it,” Trump recently told reporters when asked about negotiating a nuclear agreement with Iran. “They don’t want to die. Nobody wants to die.”
On the military front, the president has likewise demonstrated a willingness to utilize military force in a limited fashion. Like his first term in office, Trump remains averse to sustained periods of military operations. The most notable example was the military campaign against the Houthis in Yemen, which lasted several weeks before the administration halted operations and pursued a diplomatic arrangement with the group. In both instances, the belief in negotiated outcomes that minimize extended American military commitments was reinforced. “We went in with a clear diplomatic goal,” Vice President Vance declared, “not to enmesh our service members in a prolonged conflict with a non-state actor, but to secure American freedom of navigation.”
And on the economic front, it is clear this is where Trump remains the most comfortable. His belief in the power of mutually beneficial economic arrangements in preserving peace and stability has rarely been more in evidence than in the Middle East. His recent trip led to the commitment of trillions of dollars in deals with Gulf partners that spanned various domains. Notably, the competition with China was also on Trump’s mind during the trip. Administration officials were quick to point out the disparity between the trillions announced during this visit and the approximately $50 billion signed during President Xi Jinping’s 2022 visit. Many of the deals in the technological realm—including over the acquisition of advanced chips—were framed as limiting China’s influence. “They were going to China, China was going to be their parent,” Trump told a reporter during the trip. “That’s not happening anymore.”
The Trump View of the World
Several themes are apparent in the foreign policy outlook of the second Trump administration. One is the president’s own reticence to engage in sustained military operations overseas. “We will measure our success not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end,” Trump declared in his second inaugural address, “and perhaps most importantly, [by] the wars we never get into.” This theme reinforces the president’s preference for ending wars, such as in Ukraine, as well as his own relationship with the application of military force. The first Trump administration showed the president is not averse to select military actions—the 2017 and 2018 Syria strikes and the 2020 Qassem Soleimani operation being noteworthy examples—but his support for long-term, sustained military operations is rare.
This viewpoint is reinforced by another foreign policy theme in this administration: a belief that the costs to American military adventurism abroad far outweigh any potential benefits. The recent trip to the Middle East offered the president and his team an opportunity to underscore this belief. Praising the region’s economic ambitions, Trump noted: “This great transformation has not come from Western intervention noise or flying people in beautiful planes giving you lectures on how to live and govern your own affairs.” He then went on to criticize the historic American approach to the region in the Global War on Terror era: “In the end, the so-called nation builders wrecked far more nations than they built, and the interventionalists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves.”
A few weeks after the trip, Vice President Vance further underscored this perspective. In an address at the U.S. Naval Academy, he noted “a generational shift” was taking place in foreign policy, one “grounded in realism and protecting our core national interests.” The Middle East trip signified “the end of a decades-long approach in foreign policy that I think was a break from the precedent set by our founding fathers.” And he further emphasized: “we had a long experiment in our foreign policy that traded national defense and the maintenance of our alliances for nation building and meddling in foreign countries’ affairs, even when those foreign countries had very little to do with core American interests.”
Days later, the U.S. Ambassador to Turkey and close advisor to the president, Tom Barrack, further elaborated on this view: “A century ago, the West imposed maps, mandates, penciled borders, and foreign rule. Sykes-Picot divided Syria and the broader region for imperial gain—not peace. That mistake cost generations. We will not make it again. The era of Western interference is over. The future belongs to regional solutions…and a diplomacy grounded in respect. As President Trump emphasized in his May 13th address in Riyadh, gone are the days when Western interventionalists would fly to the Middle East to give lectures on how to live, and how to govern your own affairs.”
Taken together, the statements by the president and his close advisors suggest an emerging foreign policy doctrine. This doctrine appears to emphasize minimizing or ending conflicts, limiting American military commitments, and maximizing America’s economic benefits abroad. And the Middle East is, once again, the proving ground for this approach.
Conclusion
The Emerging Trump Doctrine in the Middle East represents a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy, characterized by a preference for limited military involvement, economic pragmatism, and a recalibrated alliance structure. While it has achieved notable economic gains and some diplomatic breakthroughs, the doctrine faces ongoing challenges in delivering lasting peace and stability in a volatile region. Its long-term impact will depend on the administration’s ability to balance national interests with the complex realities of Middle Eastern geopolitics.
Data Highlights:
- Over $2 trillion in investments secured during recent Middle East tours1.
- U.S.-MENA trade in 2024: $141.7 billion total goods traded; $80.4 billion exports (+5.8% from 2023); $61.3 billion imports (-1.6% from 2023); $19 billion trade surplus1.
- Military campaign against Houthis lasted weeks before diplomatic resolution1.
- Abraham Accords remain a foundation for normalization efforts1.
- June 2025 U.S. precision strike on Iran’s nuclear sites following Israeli operation3.
Footnotes
- The Emerging Trump Doctrine in the Middle East, Washington Institute, June 11, 2025.
- A Trump Doctrine for the Middle East, Brookings Institution, March 9, 2022.
- A New ‘Trump Doctrine’ for the Middle East, JNS.org, June 22, 2025.
- Trump’s Foreign Policy in the Middle East: Conspiratorialism in the Arab Media Sphere, SOAS Research Online, October 2018.
- Trump’s Legacy in the Middle East: Strategic Shift and the Geopolitics of American Foreign Policy in the Region, Portland State University, 2021.
