Trump’s policy in the Middle East is to seek immediate US gains, which may not align with Israel’s goals, leaving the situation volatile and uncertain, explains John Clarke 

As Donald Trump’s trip to the Middle East unfolds this week, we will see a great deal of showmanship and his famous ‘art of the deal’ style will on display. Before even setting out on his journey, he created a major controversy by cheerfully accepting ‘a super luxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from the royal family of Qatar—a gift that is to be available for use by … Trump as the new Air Force One until shortly before he leaves office, at which time ownership of the plane will be transferred to the Trump presidential library foundation.’ 

As Common Dreams points out, Trump’s readiness to accept such an enormously expensive gift, from the rulers of a country he is negotiating with as US president, has generated a wave of outrage. One patriotic commentator declared that ‘this is spectacularly corrupt, a level of greed and depravity that is breathtaking, even for Trump. Air Force One—the people’s plane—is going to be a flying palace donated by Qatar. No American should accept this.’ 

Yet such public storms are all part of the Trump performance and he is off to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. As he visits these countries, as CBC notes, he’ll ‘attend business gatherings, presumably ink contracts and attempt to drum up big bucks in a region that has money to spend.’ Neil Quilliam of Chatham House captured the driving spirit of the trip when he suggested that it’s ‘deals, deals, deals’. 

Regional agenda 

While lucrative commercial deal making is the centrepiece of Trump’s approach, US geopolitical strategies and the regional agenda of the Trump administration are also very much at play. Trump is journeying to the Middle East as his America First turn, his global trade war and sharpened rivalry with China are all sending shock waves across the globe. 

In this context, the alliances and rivalries that the US pursues in the Middle East face a very significant amount of rebalancing. Recently, there has been some evidence of this, in the negotiations and agreements that the Trump administration has been working on. In each case, tensions have emerged with the Netanyahu government and questions are raised as to the place Israel occupies within the strategies that are being developed by the present administration in Washington. 

On 6 May, the Israeli Air Force conducted a retaliatory raid on Yemen, but immediately afterwards, as the Times of Israel noted with chagrin, ‘Trump dropped his own bombshell … Without coordinating with Israel or other allies, he announced during a White House meeting that the Houthis had agreed to stop attacking shipping lanes in the Red Sea, and said that the US would halt its attacks on the Iran-backed group.’ 

The report bitterly suggests that if ‘the agreement holds — and that is an extremely uncertain proposition — Israel, it seems, is on its own in the fight against the Houthis.’ It also quotes an Israeli ‘national security’ expert who warns that ‘the administration is working to realize its interests even if these do not coincide with the interests of the Israeli government.’ 

On 17 April, the Times of Israel had already reported that ‘Trump quashed Israeli proposals for a series of joint strikes next month on Iranian nuclear facilities, opting instead to try for a diplomatic solution to the problem of Tehran’s nuclear program.’ Moreover, it suggested that this refusal to back Israeli plans ‘resulted from internal divisions in the Trump administration.’ A return to US/Israeli military aggression against Iran is entirely possible but the differences that have emerged are still very revealing. 

As Israel continues to occupy portions of Syria and works to destabilise its present government, it is now reported that ‘Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa has authorized envoys to make a groundbreaking series of concessions to President Donald Trump in the hopes of normalizing relations with the United States.’ The proposal seems to centre on US access to oil and gas projects and the involvement of US companies in reconstruction efforts. 

It is further reported that ‘Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin Salman has been working to set up a direct meeting between the Syrian leader and Trump’ during the latter’s visit this week. There is no way of assessing, at this point, what the prospects are for such a meeting or what would result from it if it took place. However, the efforts that are underway to establish such a dialogue are one further example of how distinct US interests are asserting themselves. 

Perhaps most strikingly, the Trump administration has now established direct negotiations with Hamas. On 12 May, National Public Radio (NPR) reported that, after several days of such discussions, Edan Alexander, the last living Israeli captive in Gaza who held US citizenship, had been released. Netanyahu was clearly put in an awkward situation by this development and the NPR report justifiably described it as the ‘latest US sidestep of Israel.’ 

America First 

Internal conflicts within the Trump administration certainly exist but a reevaluated relationship with Israel has begun to emerge. Trump’s national security advisor, Mike Walz, was driven out at the beginning of the month and it is clear that broader disagreements over Middle East policy have been raging within the senior ranks of the administration. 

Walz opened himself up to charges of lax security with his careless misuse of the Signal messaging app but it also seems that he offended Trump by undermining negotiations with Iran. ‘According to The Washington Post, he also upset Trump after engaging in “intense coordination” with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the possibility of launching military strikes on Iran.’ Moreover, Al Jazeera reports that he ‘frustrated the president by adopting an increasingly hawkish stance that favoured military aggression.’ 

Trump’s present visit to the Middle East, with its focus on lucrative deal-making, tends to confirm the present priorities of the Trump administration. Jarringly, the brief tour won’t include a visit to Israel and, indeed, the president’s relations with Netanyahu appear to be at a very low ebb. 

A 13 May article in Newsweek refers to ‘the profound extent of their schism’ which has opened up over ‘several key issues related to the regional conflict that has emerged over the ongoing war in the Gaza Strip.’ Daniel Kurtzer, previously US ambassador to both Egypt and Israel, is quoted as saying that ‘Trump is probably annoyed that Netanyahu restarted the war in Gaza and is threatening further escalation. This runs counter to Trump’s boast that he would bring the war to an end immediately upon taking office.’ 

The defining feature of Trump’s America First approach is to place immediate gains for the US ahead of other considerations. The role of US global leadership that had existed since World War Two has given way to more immediately pragmatic considerations. This has very major implications, as Israel seeks to assert its own interests and the US pursues its objectives throughout the entire region. 

Israel has always been both a settler-colonial project and a garrison state which has been preserved in order to maintain Western interests. Tensions between those two functions have frequently emerged but the changed strategic priorities in Washington increase the potential for discord. Trump wants regional stability and economic advantages for the US, while Israel is embarked on an unspeakably brutal attempt to complete its colonial project and cow neighbouring countries. 

Trump, who, to say the least, is no friend of the Palestinians, certainly intends to maintain a powerful and regionally dominant Israeli state but it must accept its subordinate role and act in ways that are in line with US objectives. Netanyahu has now suggested that ‘we receive close to $4 billion for arms. I think we will have to wean ourselves off of American security aid, just as we weaned ourselves off of American economic aid’ but this is little more than bluster. The limits of Israel’s capacity to chart its own course are set by what the US is prepared to tolerate and Trump isn’t a very patient president. 

The situation remains enormously volatile and uncertain and this is especially true for the besieged population of Gaza. However, as trading partners and Nato allies have rudely discovered, the international implications of the America First turn are powerful and far-reaching. Now it seems that even Israel is not immune from their effects.