Trump’s Middle East trip

U.S. President Donald Trump's whirlwind four-day Middle East visit underscores the complex nature of relationships within that volatile, vital region and his distinctive style. Since mainstream media coverage of Trump is so often negative, indeed, the adversarial relationship is now established, and more dispassionate evaluation becomes highly desirable.

Simply by traveling to the region, especially early in his term and with so much fanfare, Trump undercuts criticism that he and his associates are domestically focused, save for tariffs. Indeed, he has encouraged this criticism by sustained rhetorical emphasis on at-home concerns and strong suspicion of foreigners, in particular in presidential campaigns.

He is on record as liking the slogan “America First.” That term was popularized between the two world wars and served as the name of the powerful populist movement to preserve U.S. isolationism and promote our diplomatic distance from the rest of the world.

Going to the Middle East also reinforces Trump’s presidential travel priorities. In both White House terms, he has visited Saudi Arabia first. This is a departure from presidential practice, which has involved going to one of our closest neighbors in geographic terms, Canada or Mexico. However, President Joe Biden also departed from the protocol. He chose to visit Britain as the first overseas destination.

In Saudi Arabia, Trump met with the new Islamist leader of Syria, Ahmed al-Sharaa, whom Israel has described as “an al-Qaeda terrorist in a suit.” By contrast, he described their meeting in positive and promising terms.

So far in Syria, al-Sharaa’s moves have been aimed at stabilizing a desperate situation. He has established a transition government with a mandate of five years. Meeting with Trump reflects ongoing serious efforts to establish international contacts. These are sensible, not extremist, moves essential if Syria is to rebuild from current chaos and economic collapse.

The long Syria dictatorship of the Assad family ended last December, the culmination of a revolt that began in 2011. For many years, Syria was a close ally of Russia and, before that, the Soviet Union. In 2016, Russia and Turkey brokered a temporary Syria ceasefire. They intervened again to dampen provincial violence in 2020.

The decision by Vladimir Putin in 2015 to intervene directly with military forces in the fighting in Syria confirmed the expansion of Russia’s influence in the region.

This has now been stopped.

Trump also visited Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Notably absent was a stop in Israel, by custom and firmly established history the closest U.S. ally in the Middle East. U.S. officials explicitly denied that there was any particular significance to this omission, which is exactly what they would be expected to say. In fact, the snub is telling.

Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel are becoming increasingly isolated within the region and globally thanks to Israel’s brutal, violent occupation of Gaza.

Much media coverage has focused on the nonstop pageantry of the trip, including a long parade of camels. Wealthy business people accompanying the president, including his relatives, actively pursued deals, another media focus. Saudi Arabia presented Trump with a $400 million ultra-luxurious airplane.

All the pageantry and plutocracy distract from the strategic reality that the United States today is in a powerful position, perhaps unprecedented in recent times, to influence Middle East political developments.

Russia has a long history of influential involvement in the region, especially in Syria. This is now apparently in decline, but lasting expansion of U.S. influence will depend on disciplined, sustained engagement, a quality not consistently demonstrated by Donald Trump.

Arthur I. Cyr (acyr@carthage.edu)is the author of the book “After the Cold War.”