Answer first: The transition to the Trump administration signals potential major changes in U.S. foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East. While some policies like the Trans-Pacific Partnership face immediate rejection, the region’s escalating conflicts demand a nuanced approach. This article examines the challenges posed by…
Policy context for IP teams
A hallmark of U.S. presidential transitions is a comprehensive policy review to determine which initiatives to retain or alter. As President-elect Donald Trump moves toward taking office, he appears poised to enact significant changes, some potentially beneficial and others less so.
One policy seemingly destined for swift reversal is the 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement. Despite its conclusion, the TPP was never ratified by the U.S. Senate. Trump has publicly committed to shelving the deal on his first day in office. This development is regrettable, as the TPP promised to revolutionize intellectual property rights, enhance transparency, and reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers. Nevertheless, the incoming administration appears unlikely to reconsider this stance.
Key takeaways for Trump Middle East policy
- Confirm how the development affects policy ownership, enforcement, licensing, or portfolio records.
- Separate confirmed facts from legal interpretation before advising business teams.
- Map deadlines, affected assets, contracts, and evidence files to the responsible internal owner.
- Use the issue as a prompt for monitoring, filing strategy, dispute preparation, or member education.
Practical analysis
In contrast, the Middle East presents a policy area where change could be welcome. The incremental approaches of the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations have left the U.S. struggling to keep pace with rapid regional developments.
The Obama administration, in particular, often hesitated to expand its role in the region, anticipating a future when the U.S. would no longer be deeply entangled in Middle Eastern affairs. Yet, Obama maintained a consistent stance in Iraq, a fact often overlooked by critics.
It was the Bush administration that, after engaging in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, signed the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement, which set a three-year deadline for withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq. Iraqi politicians refused to extend this deadline under terms acceptable to the American public. Had the Obama administration agreed to Iraqi demands that U.S. troops be subject to Iraqi judicial authority, it likely would have faced severe backlash from Congress, including members who favored maintaining a long-term U.S. military presence akin to that in Germany or Japan.
Consequently, the Obama administration had little choice but to withdraw U.S. forces, accepting the associated criticism. Since the withdrawal, regional conflicts have intensified, engulfing an expanding area in turmoil.
The Trump administration must carefully assess these developments and formulate a coherent strategy. This will require addressing broad regional challenges such as Sunni radicalism and evaluating bilateral relationships.
Sunni radicalism, particularly emanating from the Arabian Peninsula, involves complex dynamics with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States. While extremist groups have historically received funding from the Peninsula, it is neither accurate nor productive to solely blame Saudi Arabia for regional instability. Although the U.S. has increased energy self-sufficiency through shale oil and gas, its European allies remain dependent on Gulf energy supplies. A harsher U.S. posture toward Saudi Arabia may not serve American interests.
Similarly, attributing Sunni radicalism to the Shia population overlooks their victimization in many respects. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s failure to sufficiently engage Sunni communities contributed to unrest, but some Sunni factions have also resisted living under a Shia majority, complicating the conflict.
Syria remains the region’s primary flashpoint, with a civil war that defies simple characterization. It is not merely a dictatorship suppressing democratic aspirations but a multifaceted conflict with no clear “good guys.”
The Islamic State (ISIS) is widely recognized as the foremost threat, and Trump has acknowledged this. However, eliminating ISIS globally will require a sophisticated, nuanced approach, which the emerging national security team may not fully appreciate.
Defeating ISIS is only the initial challenge. The administration must also navigate the interests of external actors in Syria, including Turkey. As a NATO member with strategic interests that sometimes diverge from those of the U.S., Turkey’s internal political shifts and regional ambitions necessitate a tactful U.S. policy.
Iran presents another critical issue. Calls from some Trump supporters to abandon the Iran nuclear deal raise questions about the impact on regional stability. While Iran may not offer clear solutions, withdrawing from the agreement risks exacerbating Middle Eastern turmoil.
Additionally, U.S. policy toward Egypt requires reassessment. Egypt has historically contributed to regional diplomacy and underpins much of Israel’s security through its support for the peace process with Palestine. Despite the process’s fragility, further deterioration remains a risk.
Related IIPLA reading
Assessing the Incoming Trump Administration's Middle East Policy Challenges The transition to the Trump administration signals potential major changes in U.S. foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East. While some policies like the Trans-Pacific Partnership face immediate rejection, the re... Read the full IIPLA blog post: https://iipla.org/blog/assessing-the-incoming-trump-administration-s-middle-east-policy-challenges