The hatred that Middle Eastern societies harbor towards the USA is of a rare kind. Although the U.S. has managed to win over some of the region’s political elites and establish alliances with certain key countries, the U.S. and American influence have been seen as unreliable and dangerous, and this perception continues to persist.
This enmity is not baseless. The US, especially using the September 11 attacks as an excuse, embarked on regime change adventures in the region, trying to impose certain ideological values on those countries instead of establishing mutually beneficial relationships with the states in the region. This has only brought endless wars and internal turmoil to the region, increasing anti-American sentiment in the area.
America’s adoption of an active and expansionist policy in the region began after World War II, and they had three main objectives: to prevent the spread of the Soviets, to secure access to the region’s oil, and to maintain the existence of the state of Israel. However, the U.S. economic goal of oil and the political goal of securing the existence of an Israeli state would come into conflict. The U.S. support for Israel would always be a source of discomfort for the Arabs and would even push them to impose a major embargo on Western oil consumers. These embargoes would severely strain Western economies while providing Arabs with leverage against the West to rein in Israel, which would drive America to pursue energy independence.
Especially the 1973 oil crisis would lead the Americans to prepare a plan to invade oil-producing countries like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, but they would abandon this plan upon realizing that these countries would destroy their own oil fields in the event of an invasion. In the end, America would come to an agreement with the oil-producing Arab states and, while trying to rein in Israel, would also start trading arms with them. These states, which shook the West in the 70s, would lose their influence in the 80s with the drop in oil prices, and while Middle Eastern countries were plunged into economic crises and internal turmoil, the US would become the most profitable actor in the Petro-dollar system.
Ultimately, with the collapse of the Soviets, the influence of secular and leftist actors in the region would diminish, and in the environment of economic and political crisis created by the drop in oil prices, radical Islamist groups would gain strength. Actors like Osama bin Laden, who emphasized that the Islamic world was being corrupted by Western-led globalization, particularly highlighting the relationship between Saudi petrodollars and American capitalism, would gather support from the impoverished masses.
The Al-Qaeda terrorist organization, born from this environment, would carry out an attack on the heart of U.S. capitalism, the World Trade Center, leading the U.S. to pursue an active military policy in the region. This aggressive Middle East policy, initiated by U.S. President George Bush, had invaded Afghanistan and Iraq with the aim of triggering capitalist and neo-liberal reforms in the region’s countries and creating governments compatible with the Western order. Starting with the dream of a new, modern Middle East, this American Middle East policy would bring destruction, blood, and tears to the countries in the region, while bringing endless wars and never-ending expenses to the USA.
On May 13, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump would address the Saudi-U.S. Investment Forum, targeting decades of Western Middle East policy and explaining to the world the. Middle East policy of the revisionist U.S. foreign policy his administration wanted to implement.
“The birth of a modern Middle East has been brought by the people of the region themselves, the people that are right here.”
The speech had begun with a description of the bright future Trump envisioned for the Middle East. A future where regional actors set aside religious and national divisions to cooperate for common development and fight against extremist ideologies.
Trump continued his speech by praising Saudi Arabia and the economic growth they have achieved in recent years. Trump spoke with praise and affection about Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown Prince and Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia, describing his actions for the Saudi economy as a reform. Selman had accomplished what was deemed impossible, reducing Saudi Arabia’s dependence on oil while making Riyadh an important technology and trade hub. According to Trump, the most important thing was that the West had no hand in these developments.
Trump was openly targeting Western interventionism, which had been synonymous with the U.S. for years, in this speech. This success that developed Saudi Arabia was not the work of Western liberal NGOs, neocons, so-called “nation-builders,” or “flying people in beautiful planes.” This success was the work of the Saudis who listened to the speech that day. Of course, this success could not be the work of Western interveners, because these interveners had already shown their capacities to the whole world in the last 20 years. Those who claimed they would build nations from primitive societies were not building nations; they were destroying them. They were the ones who squandered billions of dollars under the pretense of developing Kabul and Baghdad left behind only cities struggling in chaos.
Those who built and will build the modern Middle East, who will shape the fate of their countries and regions, were the people of this region. Western interventionists, who claimed they could develop and uplift these countries, were not even familiar with the complex structure of the societies they intervened in. These interventionists, who didn’t even know what to do themselves, were trying to tell the people of the region what they should do and how. In Saudi Arabia, however, the region’s own people, by embracing their national values, had created an Arab miracle in line with their unique vision, and according to Trump, this should be the norm for the entire region.
Rejection of the Sykes-Picot Agreement and Changes in Israeli Policies
Again, Tom Barrack, appointed by Trump as the Ambassador to Ankara and Special Representative for Syria, signaled the continuation of this break from traditional Western interventionism with a post on his X account on May 25, 2025.
The policies brought by the Sykes-Picot treaty, which did not understand Middle Eastern societies and divided the region with rulers and pens in secret meeting rooms for imperialist gains, brought destruction that cost generations, not prosperity and peace, to the region. Barrack, declaring the end of the era of interventionism, stated that the future lies in regional solutions, partnerships, and diplomacy, while also referencing Trump’s speech in Saudi Arabia.
The economic reform in Saudi Arabia was the work of the country’s elite and people. So what would happen if the region’s countries blindly implemented the neoliberal capitalism that the U.S. hoped they would adopt through its interventions in the 2000s? We can find the answer to this by looking at Syria. Bashar al-Assad’s administration had implemented a neoliberal reform in Syria by working with Western technocrats. The result was increased unemployment, inequality, and ultimately a civil war.
The tragedies experienced in Syria were born from division and mismanagement, and the country’s rebirth would occur through unity and investment in its people. For this, direct cooperation with the region was necessary. These statements are, on one hand, a rejection of Israel’s policy of dividing Syria into spheres of influence. Indeed, another indication of the Trump administration’s departure from traditional U.S. foreign policy is the clear criticism of Israel on certain key issues.
Seeing the Ahmed Shara administration, which came to power after the overthrow of Assad, as a security problem for itself, Israel had lobbied for the U.S. to take an aggressive stance against the Shara administration. Again, Israel frequently bombed Syria and, under the pretext of protecting minority groups (such as the Druze), prepared for a military intervention, but did not find the support it sought from the Trump administration.
On the contrary, the Trump administration had lifted the U.S. sanctions on Syria. In the lifting of these sanctions, Turkey, which was facing Israel over Syria, also played a role and, along with certain regional actors, convinced Trump to give the Shara administration a chance. Shara, who shook hands with Trump in Saudi Arabia, did not forget to mention a Trump Tower to be built in Damascus while talking about Syria’s bright future.
The Rejection of Western Manichaeism
The West’s perspective on the Middle East resembled the Manichaean religion, which embraced the universe as a struggle between Good and Evil. The divisions in the region were trapped in the patterns of West vs. Terrorist, Progressive vs. Reactionary, Good vs. Evil. As Trump put it, previous U.S. presidents had tried to read the souls of foreign state leaders and, as if they were responsible for them, had used U.S. military power to make these leaders pay for their sins. This use of military power left behind only dysfunctional states, blood, destruction, death, and anti-American sentiment.
America’s priority should not have been to impose certain ideological values on these countries, but to sign the most profitable agreements possible with them. As a leader coming from the business world, Trump continues to apply this world’s profit-oriented mindset to international relations. The partnerships the US would establish with regional countries should primarily provide financial benefits to both sides. Indeed, in this speech, Trump had elaborated on how beneficial his new trade policies were for America.
Trump’s revisionist foreign policy actually resembles the foreign policy of China, as described by critics of Western interventionism. China does not interfere in the domestic politics of the countries it invests in or forms trade partnerships with, nor does it force them to adopt specific ideological values. In the case of America and the West in general, such investments always have a political dimension; even during the Iraq invasion, Bush expected this military show of force to compel regional countries to adopt a neo-liberal and capitalist order. The consequences of a misguided adoption of this order, as mentioned earlier in the article, can be seen in Assad’s Syria.
Trump no longer wants America to play the role of a policeman running to every corner of the world, and he wants to establish relationships with these countries purely through commercial partnerships and mutual interests. For years, America had intervened in the region both militarily, economically, and politically with this dualistic perspective, but had not gained any real benefit from these interventions. At the end of the day, the country’s resources were constantly flowing to these areas, and America was continuously incurring losses. Seeing the collapse of the old interventionist policy, Trump is making a significant policy shift with this move to prevent the U.S. from losing its global supremacy to China.
PEACE THROUGH STRENGHT
How sincere is Trump in what he is saying? From what we have seen so far, he is quite sincere. The lifting of sanctions on Syria, the criticisms directed at Israel, the agreement with Hamas, the ceasefire with the Houthis, and the efforts to find a peaceful solution to the Iran issue truly indicate that the U.S. has diverged from its traditional Middle East policy.
Again, the Trump administration clearly rejected Israel’s proposal to jointly bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities and ended coordination with Israel on this matter. After this policy change by the United States, European Union countries have also begun to strengthen their opposition to Israel’s expansionist and aggressive policies in the region. Of course, the West didn’t suddenly become enemies of Israel. The US still wants to protect Israel’s existence, and even on May 29, according to the announcement by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, under the new visa policy, the US will not grant visas to students who have made “antisemitic” posts when applying for a visa.
However, at the end of the day, the fact remains that the U.S. administration’s disagreement with Israel on so many issues was an unrealistic dream just 1-2 years ago. In this speech, Trump identifies Iran as the main source of regional problems, in a way that Israel would want, but at the same time, he also opens a way out for Iran in a manner that Israel would not want at all. The US is ready to befriend Iran in exchange for Iran not possessing nuclear weapons and not financing radical groups.
At the core of the new U.S. foreign policy lies this desire for mutual gain; after all, many countries that are now close allies of the U.S. (Germany, Japan…) were once its greatest enemies. These hostilities can be left behind, and countries can cooperate in line with their common commercial interests.
The main focus of Trump’s foreign policy is trade, development, and global peace. In his speech in Saudi Arabia, Trump was boasting about preventing the Pakistan-India conflict in the May 2025 from turning into a full scale war. He stated that he told the sides to stop fighting and do some trade. “Fellas, come on. Let’s make a deal. Let’s do some trading. Let’s not trade nuclear missiles. Let’s trade the things that you make so beautifully.”
Trump’s approach should not be mistaken for weakness. Trump and the policy changes he brings are an attempt by the U.S. to regroup and reposition itself against China’s rising global influence. Ultimately, in this speech, Trump had stated that the US military is the greatest power in the world and announced that he would increase the military budget. Although the US President claimed that he did not want to do this, he stated that he would not hesitate to use military force when necessary. His door was open to everyone for forming partnerships and doing business. However, countries that would attack him or his allies instead of doing business with America would find this military power against them.
Coming to power during a period when global tensions were at their peak, Trump attributed the current tensions and wars to Joe Biden’s weak administration, which was managing the transition between his current presidency and his first presidency. Joe Biden, lacking the competence to protect America’s allies, emboldened America’s enemies. According to Trump, if he had been president, Russia would never have invaded Ukraine, Hamas would never have attacked Israel, and India and Pakistan would not have gone to war today because he was president.
Trump’s new foreign policy, which respects national values, prioritizes commercial partnerships, is skeptical of military and political interventionism, but is ready to use force to ensure peace when necessary, symbolizes a sharp departure from the traditional U.S. foreign policy. Time will tell how successful this new foreign policy will be. However, what is certain is that as long as Trump and his ideology are influential in the U.S. administration, this foreign policy will be America’s most important front in the global hegemonic struggle against China.
