The recent unveiling of US President Donald Trump’s new National Security Strategy (NSS) has ignited a fervent debate, not just within Washington’s policy circles, but across the globe. The strategy signals a dramatic shift in American foreign policy, particularly concerning the Middle East, and raises serious questions about the future of transatlantic alliances amidst the escalating Russia-Ukraine conflict. This new direction represents a clear break from the post-Cold War order and a reassessment of long-held assumptions about America’s role in the world.
A Rejection of the Post-Cold War Consensus
For decades, US foreign policy has been largely defined by the promotion of democracy and the maintenance of a liberal international order. The Biden administration, just three years prior, explicitly framed global competition as a struggle “between democracy and autocracy.” The Trump NSS, however, decisively rejects this framework. It moves away from the idea of actively shaping the world in America’s image, instead prioritizing “global and regional balances of power.” This isn’t simply a recalibration; it’s a fundamental rethinking of US interests and capabilities. The document explicitly states it no longer pursues “permanent American domination,” a stark contrast to previous administrations.
The Middle East: A Shift in Priorities
The implications of this new strategy are particularly pronounced in the Middle East. While the NSS touches upon the region, its relevance lies more in what it doesn’t say than what it does. The overarching message is clear: the era defined by the aftermath of 9/11, with its deep military entanglements and nation-building ambitions, is over.
The new focus is on securing critical energy supplies – oil and gas – and maintaining vital trade routes, specifically the “chokepoints” through which these resources pass. This is to be achieved while actively avoiding “forever wars” that have drained American resources and attention for years. This pivot represents a significant departure from decades of deep political and military engagement in the region.
Assumptions Underlying the New Approach
This shift is predicated on several key assumptions. Firstly, it relies on the continued and growing energy independence of the United States. Secondly, it assumes a significant degradation of the Iranian nuclear threat, despite ongoing concerns. Finally, it anticipates a move towards resolution of long-standing regional conflicts. The NSS itself optimistically notes that the Middle East is “no longer the constant irritant, and potential source of imminent catastrophe, that it once was.” This assessment, however, is increasingly viewed with skepticism. The strategy essentially proposes a move from proactive intervention to regional burden-shifting, expecting local actors to manage their own security.
Pragmatic Partnerships and the Abandonment of Values
A core tenet of Trump’s political philosophy has always been a rejection of prolonged military interventions. Now, this principle is fully integrated into the National Security Strategy. Intensive military involvement, ambitious nation-building projects, and direct leadership in regional security are now considered relics of the past. Terrorism will be addressed through targeted operations, rather than large-scale ground wars.
This pragmatic approach extends to partnerships. The US is increasingly willing to collaborate with regional actors, even those with questionable human rights records or past affiliations with terrorist groups – a point highlighted by the example of Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa (Abu Mohammed al-Jolani). The emphasis has shifted from promoting democracy and human rights to fostering business and investment opportunities, and building alliances based on mutual economic interests. This transactional approach signals a willingness to accept regional leaders “as they are,” rather than attempting to impose external values.
Questionable Foundations and Potential Risks
However, the success of this new strategy hinges on the validity of its underlying assumptions. While US energy independence is a reality, the influence of OPEC+ – particularly Russia and Saudi Arabia – on global oil prices remains substantial. Ignoring this dynamic could undermine the strategy’s core objective of securing energy supplies. Furthermore, the withdrawal of US engagement creates a power vacuum that could be readily filled by China or Russia, both of whom are actively seeking to expand their influence in the region.
The claim of “obliterating” Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity is also debatable. Israeli intelligence, often a key source of information on this issue, may not share the same optimistic assessment. Critically, the NSS lacks any mention of a future diplomatic track with Iran, raising concerns about potential escalation.
The Unresolved Conflicts
The assumption of progress towards resolving regional conflicts appears particularly optimistic. In Gaza, Hamas remains armed and in control, and the future of Trump’s proposed ceasefire deal is uncertain, especially given the lack of concrete progress on Palestinian rights and statehood. This also casts a shadow over the Abraham Accords, with Saudi Arabia’s potential joining contingent on addressing the Palestinian issue.
In Lebanon, Hezbollah continues to resist disarmament, and even US officials express doubts about the feasibility of achieving this goal. The focus is shifting from “disarmament” to “containment,” a tacit acknowledgement of the limitations of US influence.
Syria’s potential for stabilization is also questionable, given the ongoing complexities of the post-Assad era and the potential for clashes between Israel, Turkey, and Kurdish forces. The situation in Yemen, while less prominent in the headlines, remains volatile, with the Houthi threat far from eliminated.
A Divergence Between Strategy and Reality?
The National Security Strategy aims for a significant reduction in US political and financial costs in the Middle East, coupled with the pursuit of lucrative business opportunities, particularly in the Gulf, and the reconstruction of war-torn areas like Gaza and Syria. These are laudable goals, but their achievement depends entirely on the containment of regional conflicts – an assumption that is far from guaranteed. The document’s limited mention of Israel, beyond a vague assurance of security, is also noteworthy, signaling a potential cooling of the traditionally “ironclad” relationship.
Ultimately, the new US strategy risks repeating past mistakes. Is this another instance of Washington misreading the complexities of the Middle East? The divergence between the strategy’s optimistic assumptions and the realities on the ground raises serious concerns about its long-term viability and potential unintended consequences.
