Last Tuesday, my colleague Nadim Koteich wrote a piece about the Middle East policy of the US under President Donald Trump on these pages, building on an interview that Trump’s envoy to the region, Steve Witkoff, had conducted with journalist Tucker Carlson. Koteich did not endorse a position and was largely focused on Trump’s policies in general and his regional policies in particular. Witkoff’s interview and Koteich’s article invite a discussion of some of the points that were raised, especially with regard to the line drawn between Trump’s Middle East policy and his broader domestic and foreign policies.
First, it is difficult to isolate the steps that Trump has taken during the first 50 days of his term from his broader approach to the Middle East. Domestically, his marginalization of the judiciary, intimidation of universities, and approach to political opponents stand out, as do the deportation of thousands of both legal and undocumented immigrants, and his hostility toward the media and journalists.
His foreign policy - and this is the crux of the matter - seems to demonstrate his intention to impose the will of major powers on weaker ones, disregarding any role for national rights and sovereignty. This approach undermines the foundations of the international order, as it ignores the will of other nations and peoples in service of narrow interests aligned with his "America First" priorities. He has legitimized the annexation of other countries' territories and rights, openly promoted the idea of turning Canada into the 51st state and seizing Greenland and the Panama Canal, and justified Russia’s war on Ukraine, harming the US alliance with Europe that has endured for over 80 years.
Second, my colleague Nadim Koteich discussed a new American political ideology for this era. However, it would be more accurate to describe it as a new policy rather than an ideology- it is not a coherent political doctrine as we traditionally conceive of it. Instead, it amounts to a scattered set of ideas and visions, championed by extremely wealthy individuals and the far-right, that have been brought together into a conservative revolution that extends to all aspects of life.
This framework has translated into policy shifts driven by pragmatism, which inevitably impacts foreign policy. That is why Witkoff’s remarks are concerning. He frames his vision for the Middle East through the lens of this elite, which believes in "stability through the economy and security." This view is being applied to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, redefining this struggle - denying its political and existential nature and presenting it, instead, as part of an overarching economic and security project.
From the moment he took office, Trump adopted an approach to peace in the Middle East that could be called "economic peace." His vision is built around offering economic incentives and massive investments to states and groups in exchange for political concessions. This approach brought us the "Deal of the Century," which was characterized as a solution driven by economic interests rather than an attempt to meet the people’s demands. However, it is worth noting that the Deal of the Century never materialized, and the Abraham Accords failed to prevent the wars in Gaza and Lebanon that began in 2023 and have not ended.
Contrary to Witkoff’s claims, under one administration after the other, particularly under Trump, the US never addressed the root causes of the crisis. Instead, the US has ignored - or rather outright opposed - a comprehensive settlement that allows for a two-state solution.
Continuing to ignore reality, Witkoff claimed that Hamas is not intractable, implicitly suggesting that the Palestinian Authority would be marginalized in Gaza and the West Bank. His claims validate speculation that the Trump administration opposes plans for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to play a role, as well as the Arab-Egyptian initiative for Gaza, which called for an Arab-Palestinian administration, or any alternative to it.
To his credit, Trump insists on addressing Iran’s role in the region, the Houthi threat, and the Kurdish question with an approach that breaks with that of previous administrations. However, these positive shifts are insufficient: unless the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination is recognized, the Palestinian cause will continue to be exploited by Iran and its allies.
Trump oversimplifies the realities and complexities of the region. He assumes that economic solutions can resolve deeply rooted political crises alone. Indeed, the Palestinian cause is not merely a question of improved living conditions; economic growth and investments cannot be a substitute for political rights. It is a national struggle and human rights issue that cannot be bargained away, as millions of Palestinians see their struggle as an existential political conflict.
The repercussions of Trump’s policies will extend beyond the region and broadly reshape international relations. The pursuit of economic interests and disregard for political principles and rights further weakens the already fragile position of the US as a neutral mediator in global conflicts.
Koteich’s call for "a new realism, given the opportunities and risks this school of thought presents," must be heeded. However, it does not justify acquiescence to the imposition of realities by force, redrawing borders, turning Palestine into a real estate project disconnected from political rights, destabilizing Syria and Lebanon, or assuming that security can be bought. These are not solutions but dangerous attempts to reshape the region based on narrow, elite-driven, nationalist considerations with a short shelf life.
