The Middle East has faced significant upheaval as a result of US foreign policy, with experts highlighting how the Trump administration’s inconsistent diplomatic approach has destabilized the region, undermined prospects for peace, and reinforced US hegemony.
During his election campaign, President Donald Trump stressed the importance of resolving the conflict in Gaza and expressed a desire to bring lasting peace to the region in his inaugural speech.
However, within hours of his inauguration, President Trump signed an executive order instituting a 90-day moratorium on all foreign development aid, allowing exceptions only for emergency food aid and military assistance directed towards Israel and Egypt.
In February, the US government unveiled a controversial proposal to take control of the Gaza Strip, advocating the relocation of the Palestinian population and converting the area into what was phrased as the “Riviera of the Middle East.” This plan was met with widespread condemnation, being characterized by critics as a scheme for “mass expulsion.”
Just earlier this month, an expansion of the US and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation was announced to increase food distribution across the enclave. Yet, the specifics of the funding for this initiative remain uncertain, and it has faced criticism regarding both its humanitarian and safety implications.
On August 8, as tensions continued to mount, Israel’s security cabinet endorsed a plan to seize Gaza City, responding to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s call for extended control over the entirety of Palestinian territory.
When questioned about his support for the Israeli occupation, President Trump did not provide a clear stance, indicating a hesitance to curtail Israeli military actions in the region.
Beyond Gaza, the Trump administration’s strategies have reportedly intensified broader regional instability.
Since April, the US has been engaged in various nuclear negotiations with Iran, aimed at curtailing Tehran’s uranium enrichment activities. However, these discussions, which extended over about 60 days, yielded little to no progress.
Simultaneously, Israel has been involved in a series of airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, which were met with robust retaliation from Iran.
In the midst of escalating tensions, on June 22, the US conducted airstrikes against three Iranian nuclear sites, an action that was widely condemned as a breach of the United Nations Charter and international law.
Such military actions and erratic shifts in policy have exacerbated regional instability, diminishing prospects for international cooperation and underscoring the US’s failure to act as a constructive mediator in the Middle East, according to various experts.
Ross Harrison, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute and author of “Decoding Iran’s Foreign Policy,” remarked that the arbitrary demands from the Trump administration often complicate matters.
During the 60 days of nuclear talks with Iran, mixed signals from the administration—such as shifting demands for Iran to abandon nuclear weapons and then demanding no enrichment whatsoever—ultimately created a red line for Tehran that stalled negotiation prospects.
Harrison critiqued the Trump administration’s military interventions, describing them as “surgical strikes” that lacked a coherent long-term policy for the Middle East.
He argued that the US should avoid engaging in “forever wars,” as such military interventions neither provide benefits to the region nor serve US interests.
Ding Jun, director of the Middle East Studies Institute at Shanghai International Studies University, echoed these sentiments, noting that the actions of the US administration exhibit a conspicuous absence of a well-defined strategy for the Middle East.
Ding highlighted that the Trump administration’s diplomatic shortcomings are evident, particularly the lack of a long-term vision, which reinforces a hegemonic perspective.
According to a recent assessment by the Middle East Institute’s Brian Katulis, Trump’s unpredictable leadership style has not produced tangible outcomes in the wider Middle East.
The administration’s three-phase strategy intended to maintain a ceasefire in Gaza unraveled, while direct negotiations with Hamas brought minimal results.
Katulis underscored that Trump’s ambiguous stance regarding Israel’s potential occupation of Gaza reflects a passive approach to ending the conflict.
Harrison stated that the US has largely forfeited its ability and credibility in mediating the conflict, expressing doubts over the current administration’s willingness or capacity to assume that role.
Despite this, he noted that President Trump still holds significant leverage over Israel.
If Trump chooses not to utilize this influence to encourage peace, prevent settlement expansions, or curb Israeli military operations in the West Bank, global perceptions may likely deem US policy as simply aligning with Israeli interests.
There is still uncertainty as to whether Trump will leverage his support for Israel’s military initiatives in Gaza to secure any concessions.
Yan Wei, deputy director of the Institute of Middle Eastern Studies at China’s Northwest University, explained that while US influence in the Middle East appears to be dwindling, Israel remains a crucial component of America’s hard-line strategy that the US cannot afford to relinquish.
Trump has consistently been a firm ally of Netanyahu’s military actions in Gaza, advocating Israel’s “right to defend itself” while labeling Hamas as a “terrorist organization.”
As Israel escalates efforts to displace Gaza residents amidst a humanitarian crisis, the US has shown minimal willingness to intervene, which many view as evidence of the Trump administration’s indifference.
Despite some internal criticism within his administration of Netanyahu’s policies, the US-Israel alliance remains expected to endure.
Ding emphasized that for Trump, reconciling the competing demands of “America first” and “Israel first” is a multifaceted challenge.
He predicted that meaningful steps towards peace and stability in the Middle East are unlikely given the current US administration’s commitment to power politics and regional hegemony.
“Historical patterns and current realities indicate that sustainable resolutions to issues like the Iranian nuclear dilemma necessitate the abandonment of hegemonic thinking in favor of fostering dialogue built on mutual respect,” Ding suggested.
Katulis urged US and Israeli leadership to transcend mere management of the present crisis to actively seek clarity and pursue constructive outcomes through diplomacy rather than conflict and warfare.
Agencies contributed to this story.
image source from：chinadaily
