Opinion - Trump needs to stop involving himself in Middle East drama
President Trump recently visited a number of Persian Gulf countries, amid intense speculation about his administration's policy toward the Middle East.
If only his policy were to disengage from the region altogether.
Earlier this month, Trump announced that the U.S. had made a deal to halt strikes on the Houthis in Yemen. Middle East special envoy Steve Witkoff has continued to engage in talks with Iran toward a nuclear deal, while disagreements over the issue have roiled Trump's Cabinet and the Pentagon. The president also announced that he would lift sanctions on Syria and met with its new de facto leader Ahmed al-Shara, a former al-Qaeda militant.
Meanwhile, Israel's security cabinet has approved a plan to raze and occupy Gaza, permanently displacing its 2 million Palestinian inhabitants. Trump has previously suggested that the U.S. will 'take over Gaza' and has suggested that its Palestinian residents be 'cleaned out.'
Trump's eagerness to end hostilities with the Houthis, cut a deal with Iran, and lift sanctions on Syria are all encouraging. But his willingness to greenlight Israel's ethnic cleansing of Gaza and his seeming desire to forge even closer ties to the Gulf states preserves and expands the worst aspects of longstanding U.S. policy toward the region.
For decades now, our country has devoted far too much attention to the Middle East, basing policy on preferential treatment of Israel and Saudi Arabia and hostility toward Iran. This vastly overstates the importance of the Gulf region for U.S. security and global affairs, while unnecessarily drawing the United States into troublesome entanglements in the region.
U.S. policy toward the Gulf during the Cold War was premised on that region's central role in the world energy market — and therefore the supply of oil to U.S. allies in Western Europe and East Asia. Washington made it a priority to prevent the Soviet Union or a hostile local power from dominating the region and disrupting the flow of affordable energy to its allies, which were still reindustrializing and remained militarily underdeveloped.
Today, the United States need not protect energy supplies from the Gulf on behalf of its allies, nor does it face the threat of a single power dominating the region. In view of its own increasing resource constraints and the challenge posed by China, Washington should deprioritize the Middle East and have normal businesslike relations with all the powers in the region, rather than special relationships with some and adversarial relations with others.
Old habits die hard, however.
Trump and his predecessor Joe Biden both doubled down on their commitment to Israel and Saudi Arabia while seeking to isolate Iran. After Trump in his first term torched the Iran nuclear deal, the single diplomatic achievement of the Obama administration, Biden refused to ink a new deal with Tehran, continuing on the collision course set by Trump's 'maximum pressure' policy. Now, ironically, Trump seems ready to make a new deal very much along the lines of the old deal in order to avoid a war with Iran.
The Trump administration may make the mistake of thinking that an agreement with Iran requires concomitant concessions to the Israelis and Saudis. Trump has long sought to achieve Saudi-Israeli normalization in exchange for a U.S. security pact with Riyadh, the meat of the so-called 'Abraham Accords.' Israel's brazen rampage in Gaza has ruled out normalization and thus has so far been an obstacle to a U.S.-Saudi security deal.
Some have noted that Trump's ties to Israel seem under strain. Trump did not consult with the Israelis before making a deal with the Houthis and has sidelined its concerns regarding a nuclear deal with Iran. Furthermore, he did not visit Israel during his trip to the region.
However, Trump's continuing endorsement of — and possible participation in — Israel's reoccupation of Gaza, or his offer of U.S. security guarantees to Saudi Arabia, would be the worst possible recommitments to partnerships that have long been both strategically and morally unsound.
Moreover, while the U.S. has participated for too long in the wrecking of Syria, there is no need to lend legitimacy to the new government, whose trustworthiness is highly suspect — particularly in the wake of the massacre of Alawite minorities in recent months.
Trump has been willing to make some radical breaks with prior U.S. policy, putting European allies on notice, seeking an end to the Ukraine war, and being willing to cut deals with adversaries in the Gulf. But the best change would be to stop making concessions to Israel and Saudi Arabia, stop being drawn into their local rivalries, normalize relations with Iran, and largely forget about the region's security affairs altogether.
Christopher McCallion is a fellow at Defense Priorities.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oil Advances as OPEC+ Supply Boost Vies With Geopolitical Risk
(Bloomberg) -- Oil advanced as OPEC+ hiked production less than some had feared and geopolitical concerns flared over Ukraine and Iran. Billionaire Steve Cohen Wants NY to Expand Taxpayer-Backed Ferry Where the Wild Children's Museums Are The Economic Benefits of Paying Workers to Move Now With Colorful Blocks, Tirana's Pyramid Represents a Changing Albania NYC Congestion Toll Brings In $216 Million in First Four Months Brent crude for August rose toward $65 a barrel after losing 2.2% last week, while West Texas Intermediate was above $62. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies agreed on Saturday to add 411,000 barrels a day of supply in July, matching expectations, but defying reports late last week that the group was considering an even bigger volume. Meanwhile, Ukraine struck air bases deep in Russia and Iran criticized a report showing its growing stockpiles of enriched uranium, in escalations that reduce the chance of more supply from the sanctioned OPEC+ members entering the market. Trade frictions also remained in focus, after President Donald Trump said he would be increasing tariffs on steel and aluminum. Monday's move higher comes after a turbulent two months that saw prices tumble to a four-year low in the wake of Trump's tariff wars, before recuperating some of those losses. Crude remains almost 15% lower this year, pressured by the simmering trade conflicts and the abandoning by OPEC+ of its former strategy of defending higher prices by curbing output. OPEC+ officials said the quota boost reflected Saudi Arabia's desire to punish over-producing members such as Kazakhstan and Iraq. Some members — including Russia, Algeria and Oman — had wanted a pause. The group next meets on July 6 to discuss output levels for August. 'Brent should be well supported in the middle of our expected $60-$65 summer range until we get a better understanding of how quickly actual OPEC production is rising,' said Robert Rennie, head of commodity and carbon research at Westpac Banking Corp. in Sydney. 'We may be seeing signs that the pace of increase could slow in the coming months' as some members had wanted a lull in the quota hikes. YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce Mark Zuckerberg Loves MAGA Now. Will MAGA Ever Love Him Back? Will Small Business Owners Knock Down Trump's Mighty Tariffs? Trump Considers Deporting Migrants to Rwanda After the UK Decides Not To ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
The election of a Trump ally in Poland could alter EU and Ukraine policies
WARSAW, Poland (AP) — Poland has elected Karol Nawrocki, a conservative historian and staunch nationalist, as its next president in a closely watched vote that signals a resurgence of right-wing populism in the heart of Europe. Nawrocki, who is set to take office on Aug. 6, is expected to shape the country's domestic and foreign policy in ways that could strain ties with Brussels while aligning the Central European nation of nearly 38 million people more closely with the administration of President Donald Trump in the United States. Here are some key takeaways: Nawrocki's victory underscores the enduring appeal of nationalist rhetoric among about half of the country along the eastern flank of NATO and the European Union, and its deep social divisions. The 42-year-old historian who had no previous political experience built his campaign on patriotic themes, traditional Catholic values, and a vow to defend Poland's sovereignty against the EU and larger European nations like Germany. His win also reflects the appeal of right-wing nationalism across Europe, where concerns about migration, national sovereignty, and cultural identity have led to surging support for parties on the right — even the far right in recent times. Far-right candidates did very well in Poland's first round of voting two weeks earlier, underlining the appeal of the nationalist and conservative views. Nawrocki picked up many of those votes. As his supporters celebrate his win, those who voted for the defeated liberal candidate, Warsaw Mayor Rafał Trzaskowski, worry that it will hasten the erosion of liberal democratic norms. Nawrocki's presidency presents a direct challenge to Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who returned to power in late 2023 pledging to mend relations with the EU and restore judicial independence which Brussels said was eroded by Law and Justice, the party that backed Nawrocki. But Tusk's coalition — a fragile alliance of centrists, leftists, and agrarian conservatives — has struggled to push through key promises including a civil union law for same-sex couples and a less restrictive abortion law. Nawrocki, who opposes such measures, will have the power to veto legislation, complicating Tusk's agenda and potentially triggering political gridlock. Nawrocki's election could signal a stronger relationship between Poland and the Trump administration. Poland and the U.S. are close allies, and there are 10,000 U.S. troops stationed in Poland, but Tusk and his partners in the past have been critical of Trump. Nawrocki, however, has a worldview closely aligned with Trump and his Make America Great Again ethos. Trump welcomed Nawrocki to the White House a month ago and his administration made clear in other ways that he was its preferred candidate. While Nawrocki has voiced support for Ukraine's defense against Russian aggression, he does not back Ukrainian membership in NATO and has questioned the long-term costs of aid — particularly support for refugees. His rhetoric has at times echoed that of Trump, for instance by accusing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of what he said was insufficient gratitude for Poland's assistance. With growing public fatigue over helping Ukrainian refugees, Nawrocki's approach could shift Poland's posture from strong ally to conditional partner if the war drags on much longer. The election result is a setback for the EU, which had welcomed Tusk's return in 2023 as a signal of renewed pro-European engagement. Nawrocki and the Law and Justice party have criticized what nationalists view as EU overreach into Poland's national affairs, especially regarding judicial reforms and migration policy. While the president does not control day-to-day diplomacy, Nawrocki's symbolic and veto powers could frustrate Brussels' efforts to bring Poland back into alignment with bloc standards, particularly on rule-of-law issues. Though an EU member, Poland has its own currency, the zloty, which weakened slightly on Monday morning, reflecting investor concerns over potential policy instability and renewed tensions with EU institutions. Billions of euros in EU funding has been linked to judicial reforms which Tusk's government will now be unlikely to enact without presidential cooperation.

22 minutes ago
List of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' removed from US government website following criticism
WASHINGTON -- A widely anticipated list of ' sanctuary jurisdictions' no longer appears on the Department of Homeland Security's website after receiving widespread criticism for including localities that have actively supported the Trump administration's hard-line immigration policies. The department last week published the list of the jurisdictions. It said each one would receive formal notification the government deemed them uncooperative with federal immigration enforcement and whether they're believed to be in violation of any federal criminal statutes. The list was published Thursday on the department's website but on Sunday there was a 'Page Not Found" error message in its place. The list was part of the Trump administration's efforts to target communities, states and jurisdictions that it says aren't doing enough to help its immigration enforcement agenda and the promises the president made to deport more than 11 million people living in the U.S. without legal authorization. The list is being constantly reviewed and can be changed at any time and will be updated regularly, a DHS senior official said. 'Designation of a sanctuary jurisdiction is based on the evaluation of numerous factors, including self-identification as a Sanctuary Jurisdiction, noncompliance with Federal law enforcement in enforcing immigration laws, restrictions on information sharing, and legal protections for illegal aliens,' the official said in a statement. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said on Fox News' 'Sunday Morning Futures' that there had been anger from some officials about the list. However, she didn't address why it was removed. 'Some of the cities have pushed back,' Noem said. 'They think because they don't have one law or another on the books that they don't qualify, but they do qualify. They are giving sanctuary to criminals.' The list, which was riddled with misspellings, received pushback from officials in communities spanning from urban to rural and blue to red who said the list doesn't appear to make sense. In California, the city of Huntington Beach made the list even though it had filed a lawsuit challenging the state's immigration sanctuary law and passed a resolution this year declaring the community a 'non-sanctuary city.' Jim Davel, administrator for Shawano County, Wisconsin, said the inclusion of his community must have been a clerical error. Davel voted for Trump as did 67% of Shawano County. Davel thinks the administration may have confused the county's vote in 2021 to become a 'Second Amendment Sanctuary County' that prohibits gun control measures with it being a safe haven for immigrants. He said the county has approved no immigration sanctuary policies.