Five key takeaways from US President Donald Trump's Middle East trip
Washington, DC – Three days, three countries, hundreds of billions of dollars in investments and a geopolitical shift in the United States's approach to the region: Donald Trump's trip to the Middle East has been eventful.
This week, the United States president visited Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates in the first planned trip of his second presidency, after attending Pope Francis's funeral last month.
Trump was visibly gleeful throughout the trip as he secured investments, criticised domestic political rivals and heaped praise on Gulf leaders. The word 'historic' was used more than a few times by US officials to describe the visits.
With Trump returning to the White House, here are five key takeaways from his trip:
Addressing an investment summit in Riyadh, Trump promoted a realist approach to the Middle East — one in which the US does not intervene in the affairs of other countries.
He took a swipe at neoconservatives who oversaw the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as he lauded Gulf leaders for developing the region.
'This great transformation has not come from Western intervention or flying people in beautiful planes, giving you lectures on how to live and how to govern your own affairs,' he said.
'The gleaming marbles of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called nation-builders, neo-cons or liberal nonprofits like those who spent trillions and trillions of dollars failing to develop Kabul, Baghdad, so many other cities.'
Trump built his political brand with his 'America First' slogan, calling for the US to focus on its own issues instead of helping — or bombing — foreign countries.
But his words at the investment summit marked a stern rebuke of the neo-cons who dominated Trump's Republican Party a decade ago.
'In the end, the so-called nation-builders wrecked far more nations than they built, and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves,' Trump said.
It is rare for US presidents to travel to the Middle East and not visit Israel, but Trump omitted the US ally from his itinerary as he toured the region.
Skipping Israel was seen as a reflection of the deteriorating ties between the US administration and the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
This week's trip also came in the context of several moves perceived as evidence of the US marginalising Israel. The US has continued to hold talks with Israel's rival Iran, announced a ceasefire with the Houthis in Yemen, and conducted unilateral negotiations to release Israeli soldier Edan Alexander, a US citizen, from Hamas captivity.
Moreover, while touring the Gulf, Trump did not use his remarks to prioritise the establishment of formal diplomatic ties between Saudi Arabia and Israel, which had been a top goal during his first term.
It remains unclear how Trump's decisions will affect the 'special relationship' between the two allies, but experts say it is becoming increasingly apparent that the US no longer views the Middle East solely through the lens of Israel.
'Is it a tactical problem for Netanyahu and the entire pro-Israel lobby? I think it is,' Khaled Elgindy, a visiting scholar at Georgetown University, said of Trump's shift.
'It does throw a wrench in the machinery because it is a president who is showing openly daylight with Israeli decision-making, and not just in rhetoric, but acting on it — leaving Israel out of the process.'
With that chasm emerging, some Palestinian rights advocates had hoped that the US president's trip to the region would see Washington pursue a deal to end Israel's war on Gaza.
But as Trump marvelled at the luxurious buildings in the Gulf, Israel intensified its bombardment to destroy what's left of the Palestinian territory.
No ceasefire was announced, despite reports of continuing talks in Doha. And Israel appears to be pushing forward with its plan to expand its assault on Gaza as it continues to block aid for the nearly two million people in the enclave, leading to fears of famine.
United Nations experts and rights groups have described the situation as a genocide.
But despite preaching 'peace and prosperity' for both Israelis and Palestinians, Trump made no strong push to end the war during this week's trip.
On Thursday, Trump suggested that he has not given up on the idea of depopulating Gaza and turning it over to the US — a proposal that legal experts say amounts to ethnic cleansing.
'I have concepts for Gaza that I think are very good. Make it a freedom zone,' he said. 'Let the United States get involved, and make it just a freedom zone.'
In a move that surprised many observers, Trump announced from Riyadh that he will offer sanction relief to Syria, as the country emerges from a decade-plus civil war.
Trump also met with interim Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa and described him as a 'young, attractive guy'.
A wholesale lifting of sanctions was not expected, in part because of Israel's hostility to the new authorities in Syria. Israeli officials often describe al-Sharaa, who led al-Qaeda's branch in Syria before severing ties with the group, as a 'terrorist'.
But Trump said he made the decision to lift the economic penalties against Syria at the request of Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Turkiye's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
'I will be ordering the cessation of sanctions against Syria in order to give them a chance at greatness,' the US president said.
The White House said on Wednesday that Trump had a list of requests for al-Sharaa, including establishing diplomatic relations with Israel and deporting 'Palestinian terrorists'.
Removing US sanctions, which had been imposed on the government of former President Bashar al-Assad, is likely to be a boost for the new Syrian authorities, who are grappling with an ailing economy after years of conflict.
'Lifting sanctions on Syria represents a fundamental turning point,' Ibrahim Nafi Qushji, an economist, told Al Jazeera.
'The Syrian economy will transition from interacting with developing economies to integrating with more developed ones, potentially significantly reshaping trade and investment relations.'
In Saudi Arabia, Trump declared that he wants a deal with Iran — and he wants it done quickly.
'We really want them to be a successful country,' the US president said of Iran.
'We want them to be a wonderful, safe, great country, but they cannot have a nuclear weapon. This is an offer that will not last forever. The time is right now for them to choose.'
Trump warned Iran that, if it rejects his 'olive branch', he would impose a 'massive maximum pressure' against Tehran and choke off its oil exports.
Notably, Trump did not threaten explicit military action against Iran, a departure from his previous rhetoric. In late March, for instance, he told NBC News, 'If they don't make a deal, there will be bombing.'
Iran says it is not seeking nuclear weapons and would welcome a stringent monitoring programme of its nuclear facilities.
But Israel and some hawks want the Iranian nuclear programme completely dismantled, not just scaled back.
US and Iranian officials have held multiple rounds of talks this year, but Tehran says it has not received an official offer from Washington. And Trump officials have not explicitly indicated what the endgame of the talks is.
US envoy Steve Witkoff said last month that Iran 'must stop and eliminate' uranium enrichment, but days earlier, he had suggested that enrichment should be brought down to civilian energy levels.
Several Gulf countries, including the three that Trump visited this week, have welcomed the nuclear negotiations, as relations between Iran and its Arab neighbours have grown more stable in recent years.
Before entering politics, Trump was a real estate mogul who played up his celebrity persona as a mega-rich dealmaker. He appears to have brought that business mindset to the White House.
While in the wealthy Gulf region, Trump was in his element. He announced deals that would see Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE buy US arms and invest in American firms. According to the White House, Trump secured a total of $2 trillion in investments from the Middle East during the trip.
And his administration is framing the deals as a major political and economic victory for Trump.
'While it took President Biden nearly four years to secure $1 trillion in investments, President Trump achieved this in his first month, with additional investment commitments continuing to roll in,' the White House said.
'President Trump is accelerating investment in America and securing fair trade deals around the world, paving the way for a new Golden Age of lasting prosperity for generations to come.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Mapping Israel's expanding air attacks across Syria
The Israeli military says it shelled targets in Syria in response to a pair of projectiles that fell in open areas in the Israel-occupied Golan Heights on Tuesday. Since December 10, 2024, just two days after the stunning collapse of more than 53 years of the al-Assad family, Israel has waged a campaign of aerial bombardment that has destroyed much of Syria's military infrastructure, including major airports, air defence facilities, fighter jets and other strategic infrastructure. Over the past six months, Israeli forces have launched more than 200 air, drone or artillery attacks across Syria, averaging an assault roughly every three to four days, according to the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data project (ACLED). The map below shows the ACLED-recorded Israeli attacks between December 8 and May bulk of the Israeli attacks have been concentrated in the southern Syrian governorates of Deraa, Damascus and Quneitra, which account for nearly 60 percent of all recorded Israeli attacks. In the immediate aftermath of al-Assad's ouster, Israeli troops advanced into the Syrian side of the Golan Heights, including areas within the United Nations-monitored demilitarised zone, violating the 1974 disengagement agreement with Syria. The incursion drew widespread international criticism. The UN, along with several Arab nations, condemned Israel's actions as breaches of international law and violations of Syria's sovereignty. Despite these condemnations, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz said in February that Israeli forces would remain in the area indefinitely to 'protect Israeli citizens' and 'prevent hostile entities from gaining a foothold' near the border. Satellite imagery captured in February and analysed by Al Jazeera's Sanad verification unit showed six military bases were being constructed in the UN-supervised buffer zone on the border with Syria. Since taking power following the overthrow of al-Assad, President Ahmed al-Sharaa has consistently stated that his government seeks no conflict with Israel and will not permit Syria to be used by foreign actors to launch attacks. He has condemned Israel's continuing strikes on Syrian territory and its gradual expansion beyond the already-occupied Golan Heights. While Israel's air attacks on Syria have escalated in recent months, Israel has been attacking targets in Syria for years. ACLED data collected since January 2017 shows how Israeli attacks have been steadily increasing. The animated chart below shows the frequency of Israeli attacks from January 2017 to May 2025.
Al Jazeera
5 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Shooting at Gaza aid site a 'war crime'
Dr Bassem Zaqout, director of the Palestinian Medical Relief Society, says US-backed aid distribution efforts in Gaza have been marred by shootings and a lack of organisation.
Al Jazeera
6 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Why ‘Kill the Boer' still echoes: It's not hate, it's hunger for justice
On May 25, Julius Malema, the firebrand leader of South Africa's Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), closed his campaign rally at the Mminara Sports Ground in Kwakwatsi, Free State, as he often does: by singing his favourite anti-apartheid struggle anthem, 'Dubul' ibhunu'. Sung in Xhosa, the song translates to 'Kill the Boer' or 'Kill the farmer' and has long sparked controversy in South Africa and abroad. In recent weeks, the controversy has flared up once again. Just four days earlier, on May 21, during a tense meeting at the White House with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, United States President Donald Trump played a video of Malema and his supporters chanting the song. He claimed it was proof of a 'white genocide' in South Africa and demanded Ramaphosa explain 'that man's' conduct. Yet Malema has been singing this song publicly since 2010. There is no white genocide occurring in South Africa. In fact, in August 2022, the country's Equality Court ruled that the song does not constitute hate speech. By performing it again in Kwakwatsi, Malema was clearly seizing an opportunity to capitalise on Trump's misleading allegations and the global media attention they brought. The disproportionate attention granted to Malema by Trump and his ally Elon Musk obscures a deeper, more urgent reality: millions of Black South Africans, like many across the continent, are crying out for meaningful socioeconomic change and long-overdue justice for the enduring legacies of colonialism and apartheid. They are calling for a modern revolution. Nothing illustrates this more than the EFF's platform. Its policies centre on economic transformation, including land expropriation without compensation and the nationalisation of mines. The party embraces Black nationalism and pan-Africanism, supports Russia in its standoff with NATO, and positions itself in opposition to perceived Western dominance. While the EFF's agenda is bold and Afrocentric, it is hardly new. Decades before the EFF's founding on July 26, 2013, the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC), a radical anti-apartheid movement, championed many of the same ideals. Founded on April 6, 1959, by a group that split from the African National Congress (ANC), the PAC was led by Robert Sobukwe, an intellectual, pan-Africanist, and activist. At the party's launch, Sobukwe famously said, 'The Africanists take the view that there is only one race to which we all belong, and that is the human race.' The PAC advocated for the return of land to Indigenous Africans, asserting that it had been unjustly seized by white settlers. This view – that land dispossession lies at the heart of South Africa's historical injustice – has only recently begun to be addressed by the ANC through the Expropriation Act 13 of 2024, signed into law by Ramaphosa on February 23. South African history is rich with visions for African renewal. Sobukwe's philosophy laid the groundwork for what is often mischaracterised today as 'radical economic transformation'. Steve Biko's Black Consciousness Movement in the 1970s instilled pride and self-determination. In the late 1990s, President Thabo Mbeki championed the African Renaissance – a cultural, scientific, and economic revival aimed at decolonising African minds and institutions. Malema is not a theoretical pioneer, but he is a potent political vessel for the ideas long espoused by Sobukwe, Biko, and Mbeki. Much like elsewhere on the continent, South Africans are revisiting the question of land. It signals a broader resurgence of postcolonial ideology. In 1969, Muammar Gaddafi provided a powerful example. He nationalised Libya's Western-owned oil companies to uplift the impoverished. Over a decade, Gaddafi provided free education, healthcare, and subsidised housing, giving Libyans Africa's highest per capita income. In 2000, Zimbabwe launched its land reform programme to reclaim land taken during colonial rule. In more recent examples, Burkina Faso nationalised the Boungou and Wahgnion gold mines in August 2024 and plans to take over more. Mali reclaimed the Yatela mine in October. In December 2024, Niger seized control of the Somair uranium mine, previously run by French nuclear giant Orano. Across Western and Southern Africa, it is clear: the legacy of colonialism still demands redress. South Africa remains the world's most unequal country. Its Gini coefficient, which measures income inequality, consistently ranks among the highest. Decades after apartheid's fall, systemic racial inequality persists, sustained by disparities in education, employment, and economic access. Trump's astonishing decision on February 7 to sanction South Africa – partly over the Expropriation Act – reveals the West's historical amnesia and indifference. Many Black South Africans are desperate to move beyond the past, but are continually thwarted by a refusal to correct entrenched inequality. Ironically, Trump's intervention may serve to galvanise African governments. His public posturing may appeal to his domestic base, but his tone-deafness will only deepen anti-US sentiment among South Africans. Anti-Western feeling is already rising across the continent, fuelled by historical grievances, neocolonial policies, and the emergence of new global powers like Russia and China. This disillusionment is visible in the rejection of Western-backed institutions and a growing appetite for alternative partnerships. Instead of attempting to shame Ramaphosa on the world stage, Trump would do better to support equitable and lawful reforms. Obsessing over Malema is futile – he is merely the voice of a generation grappling with economic pain and historical betrayal. 'Dubul' ibhunu' resonates among parts of South Africa's Black population not because they are bloodthirsty, but because the promises of liberation remain unfulfilled. Trump would do well to understand this: the revolution in Africa is not over. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
