Trump 2 Strategy For West Asia

The fall of President Assad's regime in Syria resulted from a combination of betrayals, corruption, economic sanctions and miscalculations.

Syria became a proxy battleground for foreign powers, much like Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion in 1979. In both conflicts, foreign nations funded militant groups, which helped fuel the rise of extremist factions. The U.S. and its allies justified their interventions by claiming they were fighting terrorism and promoting democracy, yet these actions often served broader geopolitical ambitions.

The consequences have been devastating: hundreds of thousands killed, millions displaced, and Syria’s infrastructure reduced to rubble. The social fabric of the country is in tatters, and extremist groups—backed by foreign powers under the guise of protecting minorities—now hold control over Syria. The conflict served as a grim reminder of the human cost of foreign meddling, where humanitarian rhetoric often masked strategic objectives.

The situation worsened when militant groups, armed and supported by Turkey, U.S., and Israel, advanced on Aleppo. Russian forces, initially involved in the conflict, withdrew, allowing further advances by these groups. Meanwhile, Erdogan’s strategy of leveraging these factions to pressure former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad faltered.

Isolated and cornered, Assad was eventually removed by Russian forces at gunpoint, transferred to a Russian base, and placed under house arrest in Moscow.

Turkey’s involvement in Syria was driven by President Erdogan's vision of expanding neo-Ottoman influence. Turkey sought to replace Assad with a "moderate Islamic" administration, aligning with Islamist groups to bring about this transformation. For Erdogan’s AKP, this was part of a broader strategy to assert regional dominance.

Turkey is now facing the long-term fallout from its actions in Syria. The collaboration between the U.S., Israel and Russia to topple Assad, alongside their support for Kurdish autonomy, has heightened tensions with Ankara, threatening Turkey’s security. Despite international pressure, Turkey is determined to prevent a Kurdish enclave in Syria, though this stance may have consequences in the future.

With President Trump already in his second term, West Asian nations are confronting a complex and tense geopolitical situation. Trump’s second term has been marked by continued strong support for Israel and even greater pressure on other Middle Eastern nations. His alignment with Israel, especially on recognizing Israeli sovereignty in disputed areas, has been a key feature of his foreign policy.

A ceasefire deal in Gaza, brokered under Trump’s pressure, could offer short-term relief. However, Israel appears to have shifted its focus to the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This signals a continuation of Israel’s more aggressive stance toward Palestinians, potentially escalating tensions in these regions.

Notably, during the U.S. election, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump reached an understanding in which Trump promised to recognize the West Bank as part of Israel. This deal seems to have emboldened Netanyahu, who has encouraged his right-wing coalition partners to remain in his government, offering them a free hand to expand settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories in exchange for political support.

As Secretary of State, Marco Rubio’s pro-Israel stance would reinforce Trump’s policies, further strengthening ties between the U.S. and Israel. This is likely to sour relations with Palestine and other Arab nations, as Rubio’s diplomatic approach prioritizes strategic alliances—such as with Israel—over broader regional stability.

The rise of Islamic forces in Egypt and Jordan signals growing Islamist sentiment in the region, which could contribute to further instability. These forces may challenge the current leaderships, particularly in more secular governments like Egypt’s, creating new dynamics in regional geopolitics.

The region remains volatile, with multiple actors and competing interests at play. The interaction of these factors will have far-reaching impacts on both local populations and global security. Moreover, the role of West Asia in the global energy debate continues to evolve, reflecting the intersection of geopolitics and energy resources. These resources are more than just economic assets—they are at the heart of geopolitical competition, influencing regional and global stability.

The Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), often referred to as the Popular Mobilization Units (PMUs), are a key component in the complex web of Iraq's security forces. Many of these groups are heavily aligned with Iran, with some being directly supported or trained by Iranian forces, such as the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Since the U.S. has long been critical of Iran’s influence in Iraq, especially through these pro-Iran militias, the PMF has become a major point of contention between Iraq’s government, the U.S., and Iran. The PMF represents a significant and potent force in Iraq, both militarily and politically.

The U.S. will likely continue to pursue a combination of sanctions, diplomacy, and targeted military actions to curb the PMF's influence, but dismantling the group entirely seems unlikely in the immediate future, barring significant changes in Iraq’s political alignment or a shift in the broader regional balance of power.

Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, and it seems unlikely he would rejoin the agreement, even if it were renegotiated. His administration felt the deal didn’t sufficiently address Iran’s missile program or its regional activities—issues that remain central to his policy.

Trump's foreign policy strategy toward the Gulf and broader Middle East often seemed to be more focused on using "the stick" rather than the "carrot," particularly when it came to exerting pressure on countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and even some European allies. His focus is on wielding US power on dominating and controlling rather than collaborating aiming to bolster U.S. business interests and influence in the region. It is seen by some as a way to reassert U.S. strength and focus on a "deal-making" approach where leverage was the main tool.

Under Trump's second term, the U.S. seems to be doubling down on economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran, continuing the "maximum pressure" campaign. While Trump has indicated a willingness to use military force if necessary, he has also shown a preference for unilateral action and leveraging economic sanctions as his primary tool.

Direct military action could be considered if diplomacy fails, but it seems more likely to be a last resort unless Iran takes provocative actions (e.g., attacking U.S. assets or allies).

Trump’s approach is a balancing act of applying maximum pressure while leaving room for negotiations, though given the low levels of trust between the U.S. and Iran, his hardline stance is expected to dominate. This could escalate tensions with Iran, but Trump may also leverage diplomatic opportunities to secure a more favorable deal.

Overall, the geopolitical landscape is shifting, and the U.S. no longer holds the same uncontested position it once did as the world’s sole superpower. A combination of factors—ranging from the rise of China and Russia, to internal political divisions and shifting global power dynamics—has created a more multipolar world.

In this environment, U.S. dominance feels less secure, and other countries are increasingly asserting their own influence on the world stage. Trump’s Middle East Policy has been characterized by a strong alignment with Israel, an aggressive stance against Iran, efforts to reduce U.S. military involvement in regional conflicts, and a pivot away from multilateral diplomacy. His administration has reshaped traditional U.S. influence in the region, creating both opportunities for new alliances (like the Abraham Accords) and increased tensions (especially with Iran and the Kurds).

The legacy of his policies will continue to influence U.S. relations with Middle Eastern nations in his second term. The results of these shifts will likely play a significant role in the region’s political and diplomatic evolution in the coming years.

Dr Waiel Awwad is a senior journalist and a West Asia Strategist. The views expressed here are the writer’s own.

Cover Photograph: Syria’s new leader Abu Mohammed al-Golani - from radical to democrat?