American foreign policy has traditionally been built on the idea of pursuing "peace" in the Middle East, with successive administrations trying to thread the needle of a region characterized by ancient hostilities, huge animosities, and rapidly changing allegiances. It was no exception for the current administration.
Among its most important initiatives, President Trump, in preparation for his official presidency, undertook to broker peace deals between Israel and its Arab neighbors, a job undertaken by a variety of envoys and advisors. An important moment in this work was when President Donald Trump's Middle East envoy joined Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to talk about strategies for promoting regional peace.
Like other diplomatic efforts under the Trump presidency, this meeting provided a different face to Middle Eastern diplomacy, prioritizing the signing of bilateral agreements and strategic alliances over multilateral talks. To say this meeting was important is an understatement, it was a pivotal meeting amid a period of great change in the Middle East.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the central axis through which regional diplomacy revolved, for decades. Instead, the Trump administration tried to realign this focus to normalization agreements with Israel and Arab states. The shift was in response to a growing understanding of the now-changing geopolitical landscape in which modernization, the challenge to Iran, and other shared security concerns became much more pressing than any of the issues discussed in the paper. Trump’s envoy wanted to give Israel’s position in the region a sound footing by speaking directly to Netanyahu and laying the groundwork for historic breakthroughs, such as the Abraham Accords.
To put this meeting into context, one must look at the history of US involvement in the Middle East. Over four decades since the end of World War II, the United States has helped shape the region’s political and security landscape. American engagement for decades, following Israel’s establishment in 1948, has been backed by U.S. recognition. But U.S. administrations over the years have negotiated landmark agreements between Israel and Egypt, such as the Camp David Accords in 1978, and Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization in the 1990s. The efforts that these reflect were consistent with a long-standing commitment to ending conflicts and promoting stability. But they also warned that lasting peace in such a deeply divided and deeply competitive region would be difficult.
The U.S. under President Trump pursued a markedly different approach to Middle Eastern diplomacy. At its core, this approach was rooted in the more general ‘America First’ doctrine espoused by Trump, which has prioritized transactional diplomacy and the interests of the United States. The Trump administration chose to seek bilateral agreements on specific matters of concern that addressed its partner’s strategic interests and away from comprehensive peace plans grounded in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Normalized relationships between Israel and Arab states were central to this strategy, bypassing traditional insistence on the centrality of the Palestinian issue to regional peace. But this was controversial, with critics warning that sidelining the Palestinian leadership risked jeopardizing prospects for a comprehensive resolution to the conflict.
This new approach was shown by the meeting between Trump’s Middle East envoy and Netanyahu. The envoy, charged with moving the administration’s peace agenda, had several important questions for Netanyahu. They included Israel’s security the Abraham Accords, and the Palestinian question to the extent that it would not derail wider regional initiatives. Israeli policy was aligned with U.S. objectives by Netanyahu, a seasoned political leader and relentless supporter of Israel’s security. The agreements with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco alone were a historic breakthrough in Middle Eastern diplomacy, thanks in large part to his cooperation.
These efforts were the centerpiece of the Abraham Accords signed in 2020. The Trump administration helped make these agreements a reality, formalizing relations between Israel and several Arab states as a significant breaking from decades of hostility and recognition of the other. The accords were described as a watershed moment, opening up new avenues for economic cooperation, cultural exchange, and security collaboration. The accords were long sought validation of Israel's legitimacy and an opportunity, for Israel, to break out of its region isolation. The agreements gave the Arab states access to Israeli technology, investment opportunities, and closer ties to the United States for the Arab states involved.
The Abraham Accords, however, were the product of several factors. The shift in priorities of Arab states, among which some started to consider military modernization and facing Iran to be more important than the Palestinian issue, was another key factor. Together, Iran's growing role as a regional power, its support for proxy groups, and its nuclear ambitions fostered a sense of shared threat among Israel and Sunni Arab states. This convergence of interests gave the accords the strong foundation necessary to focus on common goals rather than historical grievances.
The Trump administration was also willing to use the economic stick and diplomatic carrot to achieve agreements. A June decision by Sudan to normalize relations with Israel was predicated for example on its removal from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, a step that allowed much-needed international aid to flow again. Like Morocco's participation in the accords, U.S. recognition of Morocco's sovereignty over Western Sahara was dependent upon Morocco's participation.
These measures were criticized by some as transactional and short-sighted but they reinforce the Trump administration's pragmatic approach. While these achievements were made, the Trump administration’s Middle East policy came under attack. The cutout of the Palestinian leadership was one of the most prominent criticisms of this government. The administration also was accused of bypassing the Palestinians and concentrating on normalization agreements with Arab states that could sidestep the central problems of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This approach was criticized as setting back the chances for a two-state solution and increasing Palestinian grievances. The Palestinians rejected the Abraham Accords themselves, accusing Arab states that had long pledged to support their cause of betraying the Palestinians.
The administration also challenged Iran with its ‘maximum pressure’ campaign to isolate that country and impede its ability to influence the region. This policy chimed with Israel and some Arab states, but it also further inflamed tensions and the risk of destabilizing the region. This only added to the complicated security landscape by ramping up Iran's nuclear program and its support for proxy groups. The issue of Iran and normalization agreements took precedence and did not pay attention, however, to other very pressing issues such as the ongoing conflicts in Syria and Yemen. Then changes in U.S. leadership came into question as well regarding the sustainability of the Abraham Accords.
These agreements are in the twilight of the Trump administration and the dawn of the Biden administration, and so the transition created uncertainty about their future. President Biden, however, supported the accords, but his administration took a more traditional tack in Middle Eastern diplomacy, returning to investing in multilateralism and with the Palestinians. It was a shift that raised questions about the long-term viability of Trump-era initiatives and how far these could be further expanded or even further built upon.
Beyond that, the larger implications for regional geopolitics were brought to the foreground during the meeting between Trump's Middle East envoy and the prime minister. The U.S. promoted a new opportunity for cooperation by creating a closer bond between Israel and Arab states and by diminishing the isolation of Israel in the region. This realignment of alliances was also important in terms of its effect on the balance of power, particularly Iran versus its adversaries. But it also highlighted the messiness of Middle Eastern diplomacy: progress in one area frequently comes at the price of this unsolved tension in another.
In the end, the Trump administration’s effort to remake the Middle East saw a key moment when Trump’s Middle East envoy met with Prime Minister Netanyahu. The Abraham Accords are a successful example of how the U.S. has been able to achieve significant diplomatic breakthroughs by prioritizing normalization agreements and addressing shared regional challenges. Not only did these agreements buttress Israel’s position in the region, but they also provided for new avenues of economic and security cooperation. Yet they also pointed to the difficulties and tradeoffs involved in Middle Eastern diplomacy, including the fact that you have to cater to the desires of all the parties, and in particular the Palestinian party. But as history continues to unfold, the legacy of these efforts is still debated, and is valuable in helping future policymakers find their way in one of the world’s most complex and dangerous regions.
Comments