United States President Donald Trump used his speech this week before the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) to reinforce his unique style of US foreign policy-making and levy criticisms against others, including the UN itself. But Trump’s remarks were short on any kind of framework for addressing the world’s major problems and thorny security challenges.
This absence of a pragmatic action plan from the United States is particularly true regarding the Middle East. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains the weakest component of Trump’s overall approach to the region. And the central conversation is shifting toward efforts by countries in Europe and US partners like Saudi Arabia to put the spotlight back on finding a long-term resolution.
A possible U-turn on Ukraine war as Trump’s global agenda fails to score major wins
Trump’s speech and meetings with various leaders dominated the news cycle, but the big story about the United Nations and the United States has been unfolding for several months. Early moves by the second administration to gut and cut funding and support for key UN agencies has been a central part of Trump 2.0’s new global agenda — but the full implications of these cuts on global security still remain just as unclear as the implications of Trump’s various moves on health and economic policy do at home.
The other big story from Trump’s visit to New York for the UNGA meeting was a major shift in rhetoric on Russia’s war on Ukraine. The US president said that Ukraine could reclaim all of its occupied territory, contradicting policy statements he made in the early months of his administration. Actions speak louder than words, and it remains to be seen if Trump will back these words up with any actual policy changes in his approach to Russia’s actions.
In the coming week, the center of gravity in America’s policy and political debates will shift once again back to the home front, as a looming confrontation between Congressional Republicans and Democrats over passage of the budget is making another government shutdown increasingly likely. The result of uncompromising political disputes over budgetary priorities, such periodic shutdowns send a clear message to the rest of the world about the US’s primary preoccupation with domestic matters and serve as yet another reminder of how political sectarianism makes America its own worst enemy.
Strategic drift in US policy on the Middle East
The second Trump administration’s overall approach to the Middle East at the eight-month mark suffers from strategic drift. It is being propelled by forces beyond the United States rather than a coherent, steady, and proactive approach aimed at advancing Trump’s stated goals.
Almost three months after the 12-day Israel-Iran war left the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program with extensive damage, if not “obliterated” as the president suggested, key questions remain unanswered about the program’s future viability, Iran’s intentions, as well as the country’s broader role in the region. Tehran recently rejected the restart of talks on its nuclear program, and European countries this week decried the regime’s delaying tactics as a deadline to reimpose UN snapback sanctions on Iran looms.
But there is an even bigger question mark on the Israeli-Palestinian front and where the Trump administration might be heading on that issue. Right now, Israel is shaping dynamics with its ongoing military campaign in Gaza, in addition to actions like the strike against Hamas officials in Qatar earlier this month. The Trump team has been largely passive on this front in recent weeks, allowing others to set the conditions.
Trump reportedly presented some ideas about what the post-war situation in Gaza might look like to Arab and Muslim leaders on the sidelines of the UNGA meeting yesterday, as European countries craft their own plans.
Earlier this month, a Washington Post “scoop” reported that the Trump administration has been discussing the mass relocation of Palestinians. But these ideas have been percolating and hiding in plain sight since President Trump returned to office. The world learned new details about the plan from a 38-page prospectus outlining futuristic-looking smart cities powered by artificial intelligence (AI) and proposing that Palestinians who “volunteer” (stretching the limits of the meaning of the word, after two years of a brutal war) to leave would receive a $5,000 cash payment and subsidies to cover food and rent for four years while the United States and Israel set up and manage a trusteeship.
But if there is one thing that has been consistent under Trump, both in his first term and so far in his second, it is the de-prioritization of the Palestinian people and an attempt in a very real sense to intellectually erase them from the map of Middle East futures. Truth be told, Trump’s predecessor President Joe Biden did little to prioritize the Palestinian question, especially in the first half of his administration, and only belatedly and incidentally gave Palestinians some attention when he saw a small opening for an Israel-Saudi Arabia normalization deal.
Trump’s statements in the early weeks of his second administration declaring that America would take over Gaza, including the bizarre AI-generated video about creating a “Gaza Riviera,” already hinted at the neo-colonialist visions dancing in Team Trump’s head. David Schenker, top US diplomat for the Middle East in the first Trump administration, called the plan “far-fetched.”
Two main practical problems that automatically turn this vision into a delusion: Most Palestinians do not have plans to leave, and leading Arab states are not buying the ideas, particularly as countries like Saudi Arabia focus on the need for a clear pathway to a two-state solution. The main message being sent to President Trump this week by the many countries symbolically recognizing a Palestinian state is that his aspirations for a wider Israeli-Saudi normalization deal are dead in the water as long as he remains passive on the Israeli-Palestinian file. A comprehensive Middle East peace that is built to last cannot be constructed like an Israeli settler road in the West Bank that bypasses the Palestinians. It won't work.
All eyes will turn to a pivotal meeting next week in Washington between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump. In the first three meetings these two leaders had this year, both demonstrated that their regional policies rely mainly on military tactics combined with aggressive strategic communications efforts. But this approach is not a template for peace and security — it amounts to strikes without strategy. It is much tougher to craft diplomatic agreements that rebuild lives and produce peace than it is to take out enemies in military operations.
Brian Katulis is a Senior Fellow at the Middle East Institute.
Photo by Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty Images
The Middle East Institute (MEI) is an independent, non-partisan, non-for-profit, educational organization. It does not engage in advocacy and its scholars’ opinions are their own. MEI welcomes financial donations, but retains sole editorial control over its work and its publications reflect only the authors’ views. For a listing of MEI donors, please click here.