Trump’s Middle East Policy: Abandoning the National Security Strategy | Project Syndicate

The Biden administration’s foreign policy pivot, emphasizing domestic priorities and a re-evaluation of global commitments, is facing an early test as President Donald Trump’s actions in the Middle East appear to directly contradict the strategic framework outlined in his own recently published National Security Strategy (NSS). Released late last year, the NSS signaled a shift away from prioritizing the Middle East, instead focusing on competition with China and bolstering American influence in the Western Hemisphere. However, escalating U.S. Involvement in a new Middle East conflict, as noted by Carl Bildt, is raising questions about the coherence of the administration’s approach and the practical application of its stated priorities.

A Strategy Undermined by Events

The Trump administration’s NSS, published in December 2025, represented a notable departure from previous administrations’ approaches to foreign policy. As outlined in the document, available on the White House website here, the strategy prioritizes “American preeminence” in the Western Hemisphere, balancing trade relations with China, and deterring any potential Chinese aggression towards Taiwan. A key element of this shift was a de-emphasis on the Middle East, a region that had historically consumed significant U.S. Diplomatic and military resources. The NSS explicitly stated that not all regions matter equally at all times, and that the Western Hemisphere and Indo-Pacific regions should receive the “lion’s share of strategic attention.”

However, the rapid escalation of a new conflict in the Middle East, and the increasing U.S. Involvement, appears to be at odds with this stated prioritization. Bildt argues that the objectives of this conflict are “changing by the day,” and the potential endgame scenarios are becoming increasingly complex, effectively undermining the spirit and letter of the NSS. This disconnect raises concerns about the administration’s ability to translate its strategic vision into consistent and effective foreign policy execution.

The “America First” Doctrine and Regional Realities

The 2025 NSS, like its 2017 predecessor, is deeply rooted in an “America First” ideology. This approach emphasizes national sovereignty, economic nationalism, and a reluctance to engage in extensive multilateral commitments. As the Atlantic Council notes, the new NSS formalizes these instincts more sharply, treating sovereignty, industrial revival, and tight border control as core national objectives. This focus on domestic priorities, while appealing to a segment of the electorate, presents challenges when confronted with rapidly evolving international crises that demand significant U.S. Attention and resources.

The administration’s emphasis on burden-shifting to regional partners, particularly in the Middle East, is also being tested by the current conflict. The NSS called for Gulf partners to seize on a greater role in regional security, but the escalating crisis suggests that U.S. Involvement remains critical to maintaining stability – a reality that complicates the administration’s stated goal of reducing its footprint in the region.

Economic Implications and Shifting Priorities

The de-emphasis on the Middle East in the NSS was partly driven by a desire to focus on economic competition with China. The strategy calls for balancing trade with China and protecting U.S. Economic interests. However, the escalating conflict in the Middle East has the potential to disrupt global energy markets and supply chains, creating economic headwinds that could undermine these goals. Increased oil prices, for example, could fuel inflation and slow economic growth, potentially offsetting any gains made through trade negotiations with China.

the diversion of resources to the Middle East could detract from investments in domestic infrastructure and industrial revival, key components of the “America First” economic agenda. The NSS explicitly links economic security, energy dominance, and the revival of the defense industrial base to national security, but the current crisis threatens to strain these resources and divert attention from these long-term objectives.

Hemispheric Dominance vs. Middle East Entanglement

A central tenet of the Trump administration’s NSS is the restoration of “American preeminence” in the Western Hemisphere, echoing the principles of the Monroe Doctrine. This involves reinforcing U.S. Influence in the Americas, combating drug trafficking and irregular migration, and promoting “private economies.” However, the escalating crisis in the Middle East is diverting diplomatic and military resources away from this stated priority. As Al Jazeera reports, the NSS signaled a clear intention to prioritize the Western Hemisphere, but the current situation suggests that the administration may be struggling to balance competing geopolitical demands.

This tension between hemispheric dominance and Middle East entanglement raises questions about the administration’s ability to effectively pursue multiple strategic objectives simultaneously. Critics argue that the administration’s focus on the Western Hemisphere is unrealistic given the interconnectedness of global security challenges and the enduring importance of the Middle East to global energy markets and counterterrorism efforts.

What Happens Next?

The immediate future will likely see continued U.S. Involvement in the Middle East conflict, despite the stated priorities outlined in the NSS. The administration faces a difficult balancing act: attempting to de-escalate the conflict while simultaneously protecting U.S. Interests and allies in the region. The long-term implications of this situation remain uncertain, but the administration’s strategic vision is being tested in real-time.

Looking ahead, several key developments will be crucial to watch. These include the evolution of the conflict itself, the administration’s response to any further escalation, and the impact of the crisis on global energy markets and economic growth. The administration will also require to address the growing disconnect between its stated strategic priorities and its actual foreign policy actions, and demonstrate a clear and coherent vision for navigating the complex geopolitical landscape.