By Muhammad Siddique Ali Pirzada, LLB Candidate at Pakistan College of Law (University of London)

By the time Donald Trump vacated office in January 2021, US policy in the Middle East had undergone a seismic shift. His administration brokered the Abraham Accords, a historic agreement that formalized relations between Israel, the UAE, Bahrain,  and later Morocco and Sudan. Yet, these accords were not without their diplomatic cost, demanding notable political concessions such as US acknowledgment of Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara and Sudan’s removal from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. The UAE also secured a contentious F-35 deal which has since stalled. Despite these concessions, the Abraham Accords set the tone for American policy in the region that the Biden administration has largely embraced and upheld, even in the aftermath of the October 2023 attacks.

The Abraham Accords, however, conspicuously sidestepped the Palestinian question, instead focusing on alignment between Israel and Arab states predicated upon shared security imperatives and economic ambitions. In tandem, Trump’s so-called peace plan, conceived by Jared Kushner, proposed a disjointed Palestinian state, shackled by Israeli military oversight, an arrangement summarily rejected by Palestinians and swiftly dismissed by the international community. Trump further entrenched American backing for Israeli territorial claims, most notably through the 2017 recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the 2019 endorsement of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. The closure of the U.S. Consulate in East Jerusalem and the subsequent relocation of the U.S. Embassy to West Jerusalem signalled an irrevocable rupture from Washington’s long-held claim to neutrality in final-status negotiations. Throughout his tenure, Trump’s unwavering alignment with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stood as a defining feature of his foreign policy, epitomized by Netanyahu’s 2019 campaign poster, a vivid emblem of their mutual commitment to advancing Israel’s geopolitical ambitions.

Where Trump Left Iran:

In 2018, the Trump administration executed a dramatic pivot in U.S. policy toward Iran by unilaterally abandoning the 2015 nuclear accord, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which had been painstakingly negotiated by the Obama administration, the P5+1, and the European Union. Citing inherent flaws, Trump extricated the U.S. from the agreement, prompting Iran to likewise abandon its commitments, unravelling the delicate framework that had sought to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Trump and his inner circle, including figures like then National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, saw the agreement as a diplomatic misstep that allowed Iran to remain a nuclear threshold state. Trump repeatedly criticized the deal for being too “lenient and weak”, arguing that it failed to permanently dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and only delayed, rather than eliminated, the possibility of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Moreover, his administration contended that the JCPOA was “too narrow” in scope, focusing exclusively on Iran’s nuclear program without addressing what they saw as Iran’s destabilising influence in the Middle East—such as its support for militant groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthi, as well as its missile development program.

For Trump, withdrawing from the deal was also part of a broader agenda to reverse what he perceived as a key foreign policy failure of the Obama administration. His “America First” approach sought to reassert U.S. strength on the global stage, favouring unilateral action and making deals to exclusively benefit American interests. From this perspective, the JCPOA was seen not as a long-term solution but as a short-term appeasement of Iran, which did not sufficiently constrain Iran’s regional ambitions or prevent its pursuit of advanced missile technology. By abandoning the agreement, Trump aimed to show that the U.S. would no longer tolerate what he saw as weak diplomacy and instead would adopt a more confrontational posture, using economic leverage to force Iran to negotiate a new, broader deal.

In place of the JCPOA, Trump launched a “maximum pressure” campaign, a strategy that confounded both allies and adversaries alike. His oscillations—alternating between bombastic threats and offers of sweeping negotiations—left Iran’s leadership and international stakeholders grasping for clarity, unsure of American intentions. The consequences were all but inevitable: tensions surged, and a proxy conflict ensued, with attacks on U.S. military installations and retaliatory strikes. The nadir came in 2020 with the drone assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad. In tandem, Iran accelerated its nuclear program, enriching uranium to unprecedented levels, edging nearer to developing nuclear weapons.

The Trump-Gulf Partnership: Navigating Power and Interests

As president, Trump embraced a transactional approach to his relations with Gulf states, notably defending arms sales to Saudi Arabia even after the 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. His justification was that denying arms to U.S. allies would only pave the way for Russia and China to step in. In his first overseas trip in 2017, he visited Riyadh, where he was warmly received by the Saudi regime and aligned himself with their counterterrorism initiatives—often used, as in many autocratic Arab regimes, as a pretext for suppressing political opposition. In his address to Arab and Muslim leaders, Trump made his stance clear: human rights would no longer be a point of diplomatic pressure.

On defence matters, Trump’s stance was unpredictable. After a September 2019 strike on Saudi oil facilities, attributed to Yemen’s Houthi rebels but widely believed to be backed by Iran, Trump initially promised a swift military response, only to later back away from military action, citing his reluctance to engage in war. This inconsistency left Gulf states uncertain, with some privately questioning the reliability of U.S. defence commitments.

Dawn of Reckoning: A Second Trump Administration

A second Trump administration will likely maintain a similar ideological trajectory to the first, but with a more acute degradation in both purpose and execution. The administration will likely be populated by figures of lesser ability, selected primarily for their unwavering fealty to the president rather than for any substantive competence or expertise. This infusion of sycophantic, opportunistic personnel could tilt the balance of governance away from reasoned policy deliberation towards personal loyalty, undermining the foundational principles of effective governance.

In such a scenario, Trump’s decisions could be increasingly driven by personal instinct, bypassing informed counsel and expert advice. The absence of seasoned voices within key governmental sectors could make the administration particularly vulnerable to erratic policy oscillations, accompanied by a notable deficit in accountability and oversight. The resulting environment could see governance subsumed to the president’s capricious impulses, with little regard for consistent, coherent policy frameworks.

Echoes of Occupation: Palestine – Isreal

On Israel, Trump may extend a carte blanche to Netanyahu, thus continuing the practice of his predecessor, affording him unchecked latitude to resolve conflicts with little regard for humanitarian repercussions, particularly in Gaza where at least 43,799 have been killed already. A recent report from a United Nations special committee found that Israel’s methods in the Palestinian enclave were “consistent with genocide“.

The pursuit of political gains would thus eclipse any concern for civilian suffering. Whilst Trump  is likely to encourage Arab states to contribute financial and humanitarian aid, he would resist deeper American entanglement in Palestinian governance, especially in efforts to revitalize the Palestinian Authority, preferring instead to leave the issue largely to its own devices. Israeli proposals to reoccupy Gaza or expand settlements could find a sympathetic ear in the Oval Office, especially with recent nominations known for their support of Israeli territorial ambitions. Marco Rubio, tipped for Secretary of State, has long been a staunch supporter of Israel, advocating for unyielding U.S. backing of Israeli settlements and security concerns. His appointment would likely accelerate the U.S. endorsement of Israeli territorial expansion, sidelining Palestinian rights and any hope for a balanced peace process. Pete Hegseth, nominated for Secretary of Defence, could bring a more militaristic and ideologically extreme vision, including troubling endorsements of Israeli ultranationalist goals, such as demolishing the Al-Aqsa Mosque for a “Third Temple.” His position in leadership circles could deepen U.S. military support for Israeli policies in Gaza and the West Bank, further entrenching Israeli control and potentially escalating regional instability.

Mike Huckabee, a vocal advocate for “Greater Israel,” has dismissed Palestinian identity and endorsed Israeli annexation of Palestinian territories. If appointed as US Ambassador to Israel, Huckabee’s influence would likely strengthen U.S. policies that legitimize Israeli expansion while ignoring Palestinian claims to statehood and sovereignty. Mike Waltz, nominated as National Security Adviser, has expressed unwavering support for Israeli military actions and dismissed Palestinian-led movements like BDS. His appointment would signal a more aggressive U.S. stance in favour of Israeli actions, diminishing any diplomatic space for Palestinian concerns.

Transactional Stability: The Enduring Gulf-U.S. Relationship Under Trump

Reviving the Kushner peace plan seems unlikely unless pressured by Arab allies. The Palestinian Authority, corrupt and underfunded, would be left to fend for itself. Trump’s Iran policy remains ambiguous but would likely be influenced by Netanyahu and regional leaders advocating for a return to a tougher stance, possibly including military action. Trump’s fluctuating positions and openly hostile rhetoric, coupled with private openness to negotiation, would create tension and contradiction in U.S. policy. This would not reassure Gulf states, who would be favourable to a potential embrace of authoritarianism by Trump, but remain uneasy about his unpredictability.

Trump’s Gulf strategy is marked by an unabashedly pragmatic approach, one that prioritized arms deals, business ventures, and counterterrorism cooperation, while relegating concerns over human rights and political freedoms to the periphery. While this strategy may appear more overtly transactional compared to his predecessors, it is, in essence, an extension of long-standing US policy in the region. The Gulf monarchies have long leveraged their strategic and economic significance primarily through oil, arms, and military cooperation to secure Western support, and this dynamic, though often unspoken, has ensured the durability of their regimes despite their autocratic nature.

Under Trump, this transactional framework can become more explicit, with his administration openly equating security guarantees with economic concessions. Yet, this shift should not be interpreted as an aberration but rather as a continuation, albeit more explicit, of a broader, bipartisan tradition of strategic support of the Arab Gulf autocracies. US interests in the region have long been anchored in energy security, arms sales, and more recently as a counterbalance to Iran, and have consistently outweighed more values-based considerations, resulting in a diplomatic double standard regarding International Human Rights Law and governance. Trump’s personal capriciousness, however, introduces a degree of uncertainty, as his volatile leadership style occasionally can threaten to disrupt established security commitments. His frequent rhetorical attacks on Gulf states for not contributing more financially to their own defence exemplifies the unpredictable nature of his foreign policy.

Despite these occasional disturbances, the Gulf states have navigated this relationship with remarkable acumen, ensuring that their strategic importance remains indispensable to both the White House and Downing Street. The immense financial and political capital tied up between the West and the GCC makes significant instability in the region intolerable, and thus unlikely. The enduring partnership between the US, the UK, and the Gulf monarchies is thus underpinned not only by a pragmatic, if transactional, cooperation but also by an entrenched historical interdependence that transcends individual leaders or momentary shifts in policy.

While Trump’s approach could shift the focus primarily to the commercial nature of the US’ alliance with the Gulf monarchies, it will not fundamentally alter the structural stability of the relationship. The economic, political, and security ties between the West and the Gulf will remain robust, the continued strategic imperatives of both parties ensuring the US’ concern for the preservation of the Gulf regimes, sustained by the weight of mutual dependency and an enduring geopolitical calculation.