As Donald Trump embarks on his second term, his administration’s approach to the Middle East appears defined by a mix of bold, unorthodox diplomacy and an unsettling lack of strategic coherence. While the US remains engaged in the region, its dealings with key players, including Hamas, Iran, and Syria, reflect a pattern of improvisation that leaves allies and adversaries alike questioning America’s long-term vision. This erratic approach could either lead to unexpected breakthroughs or exacerbate an already volatile landscape.
Israel-Palestine: An Unpredictable Engagement with Hamas
Few decisions have been as startling as the Trump administration’s direct talks with Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. The move, ostensibly aimed at securing the release of an American hostage, blindsided Israel, raising concerns that Washington was prioritizing a short-term gain over broader strategic stability. While Secretary of State Marco Rubio later dismissed the talks as a one-time effort, their very existence underscores Trump’s willingness to break diplomatic norms.
Beyond this surprising engagement, the administration has played an active role in ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas, particularly following the January-brokered truce. Yet, as Israel cut off aid and electricity to Gaza after the truce’s first phase expired on March 1, the administration found itself caught between its ally’s security concerns and the outrage of Arab states. Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, now faces the challenge of balancing U.S. interests, Israeli demands, and regional political pressures.
Meanwhile, in Lebanon, the administration has worked to prevent another war between Hezbollah and Israel. Deputy Envoy Morgan Ortagus recently announced new rounds of talks aimed at reinforcing a ceasefire agreement inherited from the Biden administration. Yet, as with much of Trump’s Middle East policy, these efforts remain reactionary rather than strategic.
Iran: Between Maximum Pressure and Mixed Messages
Iran remains a focal point of U.S. foreign policy, yet Trump’s stance has oscillated between confrontation and tentative outreach. His administration doubled down on the “maximum pressure” campaign, revoking a sanctions waiver that allowed Iraq to purchase Iranian energy. Yet, in the same breath, Trump confirmed that he had sent a letter to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, proposing negotiations.
“There are two ways Iran can be handled: militarily, or you make a deal,” Trump stated in an interview, signaling his preference for diplomacy while keeping military action on the table. Tehran’s response was predictably mixed. Khamenei publicly dismissed Washington as a “bullying government,” yet Iranian officials hinted at a cautious willingness to engage.
This inconsistency reflects a broader issue: while economic and political pressures on Iran are mounting, the Trump administration has yet to define its ultimate goal. Is the U.S. seeking regime change? A new nuclear agreement? A mere show of force? Without a clear answer, any diplomatic opening remains fragile.
Further complicating matters is Washington’s evolving stance toward Russia and China. As Trump seeks to recalibrate U.S. alliances, any shift in policy toward Iran will have ripple effects beyond the Middle East, shaping global diplomacy in ways that remain uncertain.
Syria: A Policy of Neglect
While the Trump administration has taken a hands-on approach to Israel-Palestine and Iran, its strategy in Syria can best be described as one of calculated neglect. The past week alone saw over 1,000 civilians killed in clashes between Assad’s forces and opposition groups, yet Washington’s response was limited to a statement from Secretary of State Rubio condemning the violence and blaming radical Islamist factions.
This passive approach stands in stark contrast to Trump’s more assertive diplomacy elsewhere. While his administration has not hesitated to engage directly with hostile actors like Hamas and Iran, it appears unwilling to wade into Syria’s complex battlefield. This hesitancy stems partly from broader American exhaustion with Middle Eastern conflicts and partly from the reality that Syria remains a battleground for larger powers, including Russia, Iran, and Turkey.
An Unscripted Foreign Policy
The defining feature of Trump’s second-term Middle East policy is its unpredictability. On one hand, the administration has demonstrated a willingness to engage diplomatically in unexpected ways, whether through backchannel talks with Hamas or outreach to Iran. On the other, its lack of a coherent strategy leaves allies and adversaries uncertain about America’s long-term intentions.
Trump’s selective engagement raises pressing questions: Does the administration have a concrete plan for Middle East peace? Will its pressure campaign on Iran lead to meaningful negotiations or an escalation of hostilities? And does Washington’s reluctance to engage in Syria signal a broader retreat from regional affairs?
Above all, as Trump writes his own rulebook on foreign policy, the Middle East remains a testing ground for his high-risk, high-reward approach. Whether this strategy leads to diplomatic breakthroughs or deepens regional instability will become clear in the months ahead.
