Aidarous al-Zubaidi, President of the Southern Transitional Council (STC), which is supported by the United Arab Emirates and is one of the parties to the Yemeni civil war, fled from Aden—the de facto capital of the STC—to the UAE on January 8. On January 9, the Southern Transitional Council announced that it had dissolved itself. The STC’s Secretary-General explained this decision by pointing to participation in the Dialogue Conference to be held in Saudi Arabia, another party to the civil war. This development indicates that Saudi Arabia, which the United States views as a regional actor and partner, has gained a clear advantage in the Yemeni civil war.
During the same period, the Syrian Army, through successful operations carried out with the participation of Arab tribes, confined the YPG to the Hasakah and Ayn al-Arab areas and stripped it of nearly all of its economic resources. At the same time, statements by the U.S. Ambassador to Ankara and U.S. Special Envoy for Syria, Tom Barrack—declaring that the YPG would no longer be supported by the United States and that it should integrate fully into the Syrian state—drew significant attention. These developments have raised questions among observers as to whether the Trump administration has introduced a shift in U.S. foreign policy methods, particularly with regard to the Middle East. The purpose of this article is to examine Trump’s foreign policy approach, his administration’s view of regional powers in the Middle East, and how Türkiye can benefit from this process.
The Foreign Policy Vision of the Trump Administration
The foreign policy vision reshaped during Trump’s second term is based on a deliberate break from the post-Cold War approach of global hegemony and the claim of constructing and managing a liberal, rules-based international order. Under this new approach, the United States no longer seeks to act as a “system provider” that intervenes in every global crisis. Instead, it advocates a multilayered order in which allied regional powers manage the field, while the United States assumes the role of an overarching arbiter.
In Trump’s foreign policy, ideology and values are replaced by power, cost calculations, and bargaining-based diplomacy as the central pillars. The Wilsonian understanding that views the United States as the exporter and guardian of its values is regarded as unnecessary within this framework. According to Trump, the primary priority of the United States is to withdraw—through cooperation with allied regional powers—from regions that do not directly serve U.S. interests, to return to a Monroe Doctrine-style approach by consolidating its position as the sole hegemon in the Western Hemisphere, and, from this position of strength, to focus on its main rival: China.
One of the most distinctive elements of the United States’ new foreign policy vision is the strengthening of allied regional powers and the delegation of regional stability to these actors. The Trump administration views the active presence of U.S. troops on the ground as costly and politically risky. Therefore, the task of maintaining order is intended to be transferred to regional powers. The United States prefers to work with actors only as long as they remain functional and do not generate excessive costs. Structures that disrupt the balance or draw the U.S. into direct conflict are seen as expendable and are quickly abandoned.
Within this framework, three core principles stand out in Trump’s foreign policy. The first is the narrowing of global priorities. Unlike Democrats and neoconservatives, Trump no longer views the Middle East as the central arena of American foreign policy. However, this does not mean that the Middle East is entirely abandoned. Rather, it is seen as a region that must be managed but should not exhaust the United States.
The second principle is the preference for engaging with states. For an extended period, particularly in the Middle East, the United States engaged with non-state actors and groups designated as terrorist organizations, applying a divide-and-rule strategy through these entities. This strategy proved costly, produced instability, and damaged relations with regional allies. The deterioration of Turkish-American relations due to U.S. support for the YPG serves as a clear example. Consequently, in the new foreign policy vision, non-state actors are viewed only as temporary instruments, while the legitimate interlocutors of a durable order are recognized as sovereign states with established institutions and standing armies.
The third principle is bargaining-based power politics. According to Trump’s understanding, alliances are not permanent but are relationships that must be continuously renegotiated based on mutual benefit. This approach also clarifies the United States’ perspective on proxy warfare. Trump evaluates proxy forces not through ideological affinity, but through their capacity to deliver tangible results. Entities that fail to achieve statehood, cannot generate legitimacy, and remain dependent on a single external sponsor are seen as unsustainable. Rather than protecting such actors in the long term, the United States adopts a position that does not object to the expansion of influence by regional states.
The dissolution of the UAE-backed Southern Transitional Council in favor of Saudi Arabia, the conclusion of the Syrian civil war with the overthrow of Assad, and the subsequent elimination of the YPG—one of Türkiye’s most significant adversaries—by the Syrian Army all demonstrate that this new foreign policy approach is actively being implemented. The United States is rendering ineffective the structures it previously used as proxies in order to pave the way for stable, legitimate, and powerful regional allies.
How Can Türkiye Benefit from the United States’ New Foreign Policy Vision?
Türkiye is a regional power due to its military capacity, economic structure, and human capital. The success of regional powers in international politics depends on their ability to accurately read the strategies of great powers and adopt a sound realpolitik approach. Türkiye was unable to resolve the Cyprus issue—adopted as a national cause in the 1950s—due to the Johnson Letter; however, it ultimately achieved a resolution by capitalizing on the possibility of Makarios granting the Soviet Union a military base on Cyprus and by correctly assessing the Détente period of the Cold War. This example demonstrates that Türkiye can neutralize threats and secure gains in the new era through accurate strategic assessment.
With the United States adopting a foreign policy that grants greater autonomy to its allies, Türkiye’s prominence in the Middle East has increased. In this process, Türkiye should not limit itself to resolving the Syrian issue alone but should also pursue the elimination of all cross-border terrorist elements. While encouraging restraint in the event of a potential disintegration in Iran, Türkiye must also remain prepared to act decisively when its core interests and security requirements demand it.
Türkiye’s active role in ensuring regional stability is also crucial for the functioning of U.S. foreign policy. As a result, Türkiye may be able to secure more favorable outcomes than in the past in resolving its disputes with Greece, which continues to generate security challenges.
In the new period, Türkiye should not confine itself to resolving existing issues. It should also expand its activities in Central Asia and Africa, regions where it maintains a historical and strategic sphere of influence and where a more active presence is necessary. Given China’s growing involvement in these regions, Türkiye’s increased engagement would amount to active competition with China, potentially enabling Türkiye—backed by U.S. support—to achieve greater gains than under normal circumstances.
In summary, the characteristics of the United States’ new foreign policy vision provide Türkiye with an opportunity to pursue more maximalist policies within its spheres of influence and to expand its strategic gains. Türkiye should not miss the opportunities presented by this period and must prepare for all scenarios that could evolve in its favor.
