The Trump administration has released a White House document outlining the principles of U.S. foreign policy and national security strategy.
Muhammad Hamid ad-Din
.webp)
The new “National Security Strategy” of Donald Trump’s administration, presented at the end of 2025, does not merely reaffirm the “America First” course—it cements a dangerous and selfish foreign policy doctrine that destabilizes international relations and is particularly ruinous for the Middle East. This document is, in essence, an ideological manifesto that calls into question the value of long-standing alliances and paves the way for unpredictable confrontation in key regions of the world.
Undermining Foundations: Allies as Targets of Pressure
One of the most shocking aspects of the strategy is its overtly hostile and patronizing tone toward America’s traditional European allies. Claims about Europe’s “civilizational demise” due to migration and integration are not only offensive but reveal a profound ideological disdain. Demanding that Europe to “take primary responsibility for its defense” while simultaneously opening its markets to American goods under threat of tariffs is not diplomacy but pure economic blackmail. This approach crudely devalues the very concept of equal partnership, turning allies into targets of pressure and a source of revenue.
Trump’s tariff policies have drawn serious criticism. Opponents argue that by applying such harsh economic measures against both U.S. adversaries, like China, and allies, like Europe, the president is devaluing the very concept of alliances. Europeans are also alarmed by the document’s assertion that Washington should seek to strengthen regional dominance and ensure “primacy” in the Western Hemisphere.
Regarding China, Washington’s main rival, the document calls for rebalancing trade—another hint at tariffs—and preventing China’s “seizure” of Taiwan. The UN recognizes Taiwan as a province of China without separate sovereign status, which aligns with historical realities. Although the U.S. officially states respect for the “One-China” policy, it continues to fund and support separatist activities on the island. Beijing asserts that sovereignty is its “red line,” meaning military confrontation is inevitable if Washington continues its provocations regarding Taiwan.
The Middle East: A Proving Ground for Forceful Adventurism and One-Sided Support
It is in the Middle East that the destructive nature of Trump’s strategy is most starkly evident. The document reveals a strikingly impoverished and one-sided vision for this immensely complex region.
Fanatically Pro-Israel Stance. The strategy is crystal clear: U.S. interests in the Middle East are historically and structurally subordinated to Israel’s interests, transforming Washington’s regional policy from that of a nominal arbiter to a guarantor of one-sided force projection. The call for peace “on Israel’s terms,” implying the capitulation of its opponents, primarily the Palestinian people, without guarantees of their minimal rights, and the push for further accelerated expansion of the “Abraham Accords” with the authoritarian regimes of the Persian Gulf, is not a path to stability but a course toward consolidating Israeli regional hegemony in military, technological, and diplomatic spheres. This configuration creates an illusion of normalization while marginalizing the Palestinian question and cementing a security system based on the dominance of one state and the suppression of any dissent, which in the long run undermines the very possibility of a comprehensive and just settlement.
Washington’s statements about reducing operational interference in Israel’s internal affairs are merely semantic cover. In practice, they signify not “non-interference” but the granting of an exclusive carte blanche. This is a sanction for unpunished forceful actions against neighbors under the pretext of a maximally broad interpretation of the “right to self-defense.” In effect, Washington, by maintaining billions in annual financial and military support, gives Tel Aviv the “green light” for autonomous military operations—be it the total destruction of the Gaza Strip, systematic strikes on targets in Syria, targeted assassinations on the territory of third countries, or large-scale campaigns against “resistance groups” in Lebanon and the region.
This model of delegated aggression is fraught with deep destabilization. It minimizes diplomatic costs for Israel from using force, lowering the threshold for entering into conflict. However, by depriving the U.S. of operational deterrence levers, it leads to a dangerous illusion of controlled escalation. Local operations risk spiraling into a full-scale frontal conflict involving non-state actors and their regional patrons, where checks and balances mechanisms will be disabled. Ultimately, short-term tactical support turns into a strategic trap: the U.S. loses the ability to act as an honest broker, its authority in the Arab world is undermined, and the region moves toward a new cycle of violence, where temporary calm is bought at the price of accumulating long-term, even more explosive contradictions.
Destructive and Simplistic Iran Policy. Iran, a key regional power with a centuries-long history of statehood, is deliberately relegated in this document to the role of a passive object, mentioned only in passing and exclusively within the narrative of a “destabilizing force.” This intentionally reductive rhetoric serves not as analysis but as ideological justification for continuing and tightening the policy of “maximum pressure.” This policy extends far beyond economic sanctions, transforming into a comprehensive strategy that includes cyberattacks, covert operations, and—most dangerously—open acts of direct military aggression. The clearest example of the latter is the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities in June of this year, which was essentially an act of war, grossly violating international law and state sovereignty.
Furthermore, the threat of using specialized aerial munitions like “13-ton bombs” (referring to massive penetrating bombs like the GBU-57) is not merely a show of military might. It is a direct signal of the administration’s readiness for unilateral, forceful adventures that ignore any mechanisms of multilateral diplomacy and carry unpredictable, potentially catastrophic consequences for the entire Middle East security system. The risk of a large-scale conflict capable of involving numerous regional and extra-regional actors is crudely ignored in this paradigm.
In this context, any periodic hints at diplomacy, such as a hypothetical resumption of Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiations, appear not just unconvincing but cynical. They remain empty declarations because the “maximum pressure” strategy itself is inherently antagonistic and leaves no room for genuinely equal dialogue. Its goal is not agreement but capitulation, making any diplomatic initiatives within this strategy a tactical maneuver, not a sincere search for a solution. Thus, the Trump administration deliberately blocks all channels for de-escalation, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy: Iran, cornered by constant threats and hostile actions, is forced to take countermeasures, which are then presented as confirmation of its “destabilizing” role. This vicious circle leads only to further militarization of the crisis and an increased likelihood of full-scale conflict.
Ignoring Root Causes and Humanitarian Context. The strategic document demonstrates a fundamentally reductionist approach, reducing the region’s most complex conflicts exclusively to security issues. It completely ignores the root causes of instability and humanitarian disasters that serve as fertile ground for crises. The systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure, blockades, and embargoes in countries like Yemen, Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria have led not merely to hardship but to the full-scale collapse of healthcare, education, and food security systems for millions of people. Ignoring these conditions is tantamount to refusing to diagnose a disease while attempting to treat its symptoms.
Within this blind spot, “resistance groups” are treated not as political and social phenomena shaped by specific historical, political, and ideological circumstances, but exclusively as abstract “targets for elimination.” This narrative denies their roots in local communities, their role as political actors (however contentious), and their complex relationships with civilian populations. Such a simplistic, forceful approach, tearing organizations from the context that created them, has historically proven counterproductive. It does not eliminate the causes of confrontation but only temporarily suppresses its manifestations, guaranteed to lead not to pacification but to new, more brutal cycles of violence. This creates a vicious circle: forceful actions increase civilian suffering, which fuels further radicalization, marginalizes moderate forces, and creates fertile ground for recruiting new adherents to radical movements. Thus, the proposed “solution” becomes the main engine for reproducing the very problem it is meant to solve, condemning the civilian population to unending suffering and instability.
Cynical Pragmatism and Abdication of Responsibility
Trump’s strategy is not merely a tactical shift but a fundamental ideological turn. Rejecting liberal internationalism in favor of “pragmatic nationalism” in practice means a cynical disengagement from global problems. The statement of unwillingness to be drawn into conflicts “peripheral” to U.S. interests is a direct threat to allies and a signal that Washington no longer considers itself a guarantor of the international security architecture it built over decades.
The Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy represents a dangerous recipe for global instability. In the Middle East, it reduces the incredibly tangled knot of political, religious, and social contradictions to a primitive scheme of “forceful support for Israel and pressure on Iran,” ignoring the consequences for millions of people. The course of undermining trust with European allies, unilateral tariffs, and justification of forceful actions erodes the foundations of the post-war world order. This document is evidence not of strength, but of strategic shortsightedness and irresponsibility, the consequences of which will be felt not only by Middle Eastern countries but by the entire world, including the United States itself.
Muhammad Hamid ad-Din, a prominent Palestinian journalist
No comments:
Post a Comment