Trump is defining the boundaries of the American empire in order to extract the resources needed to win the challenge with China. The shortage of raw materials is striking and a degree of dependence on the rival is inevitable. The rebirth of continentalism.
Donald Trump’s second-term Middle East approach marks a stark departure from past US involvement in the region, and is characterised by aggressive military actions, controversial diplomatic manoeuvres, significant military aid packages, and economic leverage. From Gaza to Iran, his policies intensified regional instability, deepened humanitarian crises, and raised questions about the long-term objectives and consequences of US foreign policy in the region.
Support for Israel Amidst the Gaza Conflict
Trump’s boldest move in 2025 was in Gaza. On February 4th, Trump stunned allies by proposing direct US control of Gaza, branding it the “Riviera of the Middle East.” The plan involved forcibly relocating 2 million Palestinians, an idea unequivocally rejected by Egypt and Jordan. This shift breaks decades of two-state solution rhetoric, benefiting the Netanyahu government and pushing US foreign policy solely towards Israeli interests.
Aside from shifting from the US’ actual interests in the Middle East, namely stability, Trump’s administration has cut funds from the United Nations’ programmes and from USAID, the leading aid distributor of humanitarian aid in the Middle East, which has dramatically impacted states such as Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and others, all during unprecedented levels of military assistance delivered to one nation: Israel. It is then clear that the shift is from “humanitarian colonialism”, as described by Trump himself when referring to USAID, to a bolder military presence in the region. A presence that would never be achievable without Israel, as also said by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, “This is the dirty work Israel is doing for all of us”.
Maximum Pressure and the Iran Strikes
Perhaps the most dramatic and consequential element of Trump’s Middle East policy in 2025 was his decision to launch direct airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, the culmination of an intensified “maximum pressure” strategy. On June 22nd, under Trump’s orders, US forces carried out “Operation Midnight Hammer”, bombing key nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan with advanced bunker-buster bombs. This marked the first direct US military action against Iran’s nuclear program, representing a sharp escalation from previous diplomatic approaches.
The strikes were made possible by a regional context that had turned decisively against Tehran. By mid-2025, Israel’s operations against Hezbollah and Hamas had eliminated much of their political and military leadership, while the fall of Assad’s regime in Syria severed a vital supply line for Iran’s “axis of resistance”. With its network weakened, Tehran faced mounting pressure on multiple fronts: diplomatic talks in Oman and Italy stalled, sweeping new US sanctions aimed to drive Iranian oil exports to zero, and relentless Israeli air operations targeted Iranian proxies. Trump’s actions, though criticised as reckless by some, reflected a calculated attempt to corner Iran politically, economically, and militarily.
Yet the military strikes carried significant risks. Iran retaliated immediately, first with a two-week war with Israel, seen in Jordan, Iraq and Syria, the population would see those bright lights in the sky and fear that this would become again the norm in the region. Secondly, after the US strikes, Tehran launched missile attacks on a US base in Qatar, warning of further escalation. The brief but intense confrontation reignited fears of a broader regional conflict, highlighting how Trump’s unilateral military gambits threatened to destabilise an already fragile Middle East, even as they tightened the screws on Iran’s ambitions.
The China Challenge: Economic Competition in the Gulf
While the strikes on Iran demonstrated Trump’s readiness to use force, his competition with China highlighted his preference for transactional deals over long-term alliances. Chinese diplomatic presence in the Middle East has been steadily growing over the last few years. Therefore, the Middle East tour that took place in May 2025 was designed to counter China’s influence and reestablish itself as an essential trading and diplomatic partner in the region. According to Trump, the sheer number of deals he achieved amounts to $2 trillion. Some examples of this include the technology agreements aimed at countering China’s “Digital Silk Road” initiative, the US-Saudi partnerships encompassing arms, artificial intelligence (AI), healthcare, and infrastructure projects, and the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC).
The corridor was initially introduced in 2023, aiming to serve as an alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative by connecting India and the Middle East to Europe through the Mediterranean. It would pass through Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan and Israel, aiming to significantly reduce transit times.
Transactional Diplomacy
The revival of the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor will indeed position the US in a more favourable situation, but the consequential diplomatic advantage that China was able to establish, as when it mediated the normalisation accords between Saudi Arabia and Iran in 2023, is far greater. The limits of transactional diplomacy become evident over the long term. Despite Trump’s approach benefiting both the US and the Middle Eastern states with immediate economic gains, it raised doubts about the US’s priorities and lack of focus on constructing and maintaining institutional relationships.
Reflections
Yet not all of Trump’s gambits are purely destabilising. The Abraham Accords expansion underpins his vision of a Middle East driven by commerce. He secured massive Gulf investment pledges, with Saudi Arabia’s $600 billion and the UAE’s huge AI and infrastructure bets, to bind Israel and Arab states into a shared economic sphere, isolating Iran. But Gaza’s devastation after Hamas’s 2023 attack hardens Arab opinion, making Saudi normalisation politically tricky.
The expansion, however, faces significant challenges. The devastation in Gaza and proposals for displacement have sparked outrage throughout the Arab world, complicating Saudi Arabia’s position. Riyadh must navigate the expectations of a younger generation that is pragmatically open to Israel while also honouring deep-rooted solidarity with the Palestinians and maintaining its religious legitimacy as the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques. Additionally, Egypt and Jordan, which have long been peace partners with Israel, are concerned about potential unrest that could spill over their borders. Furthermore, Russia’s ongoing presence in Syria and its ties with Tehran introduce another layer of complexity, emphasizing that any US-led coalition must address the influences of multiple external players in the region.
Trump’s endgame rests on three pillars: containing Iran, expanding normalisation, and anchoring US economic dominance through massive trade corridors and military presence. The 2025 developments in the Middle East thus represented both a culmination of existing trends toward multipolarity and a catalyst for further changes in global governance structures. Whether Trump’s dealignment would ultimately strengthen or weaken US influence would depend on the ability of future administrations to build upon its commercial successes while addressing its strategic limitations. Ultimately, Trump’s Middle East policy tests whether great power leadership can be maintained through ad hoc deals and force alone, or whether the vacuum left by institutional neglect will be filled by rivals eager to reshape the region’s future.
