Trump’s Middle East policy needs regional inputs

The Middle East policy of US President Donald Trump’s administration appears to be a work in progress. Some parts are being shaped by events, including Israel’s war in Gaza and Houthi attacks in the Red Sea: others are a continuation of his first administration, such as the “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran.

As part of the latter, the US has increased sanctions against Tehran. On Tuesday it imposed penalties on six entities and two individuals believed to be involved in the procurement of key components for Iran’s drone and ballistic missile programs. The US said it would use “all available means” to disrupt these programs and weapons proliferation, including pressure on third countries who conceal the acquisition of arms and the transfer of sensitive technology.

On Yemen, the administration has scaled up attacks against the Houthis to degrade their ability to attack shipping in the Red Sea: it has designated them a foreign terrorist organization and tightened sanctions. On Wednesday, the US imposed sanctions on the “financial facilitators, procurement operatives, and companies operating as part of a global illicit finance network” supporting the Houthis, including financier Sa’id Al-Jamal, who is believed to be backed by Iran. This network has procured millions of dollars’ worth of commodities, including weapons, dual-use materials, and Ukrainian grain, for shipment to Houthi-controlled areas in Yemen, according to the US State and Treasury departments.

On Gaza, the administration has not only refrained from commenting on the current ferocious Israeli attacks on civilians, but it has also accelerated deliveries of the weapons used in those attacks. UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher said on Thursday: “I think America has made clear that its support for Israel at this moment is unequivocal and that there isn’t a message of restraint as there might have been."

Trump initially supported Israeli proposals to forcibly remove the people of Gaza to other countries and rebuild the enclave. Now administration officials say they still support displacement, but it must be voluntary and temporary.

While these are important policy threads, they leave significant gaps, which US regional partners need to fill. The US appears to be waiting for sustainable solutions for the region’s crises, from Gaza to Yemen to Syria and Sudan.

Trump will visit Saudi Arabia soon, possibly in May. It is likely to be the first foreign trip of his term of office, as it was in 2017 at the start of his first term. The visit will raise expectations about America’s regional role and put pressure on everyone involved to come up with creative solutions to match the administration’s novel approach to policy.

Trump has said that he aspires to end wars and make peace, and is thought to covet a Nobel peace prize. That is by no means out of the question, because the US is well placed to shape the future of this region, despite its declared desire not to be involved. On Gaza, there needs to be a more serious discussion of the Arab plan adopted by the Cairo summit on March 4. The administration’s dismissal of that plan is counterproductive, because it meets most if not all of Washington’s asks. It sidelines Hamas and calls for the appointment of an independent, non-partisan committee unaffiliated with any faction to be in charge of security and economic recovery in the Strip, paving the way for extending the Palestinian authority to Gaza. There are obviously many details to be worked out and explained. The summit designated a committee headed by the Saudi foreign minister to travel to key capitals to mobilize support for the plan. Washington will certainly be one of its stops.

The Trump administration has clearly appreciated Saudi Arabia’s efforts since the start of the Ukraine war to reach a ceasefire there and initiate peace talks, and its hosting of meetings of American, Russian and Ukrainian delegations to that end. The US would also do well to engage with Riyadh and its Arab partners when they talk about Gaza and the underlying Israel-Palestine conflict.

On Iran, and parallel to maximum pressure, the administration has engaged in indirect diplomacy with Tehran. However, it seems to repeat previous mistakes by focusing solely on the nuclear program. The GCC has long called for the talks with Iran to be comprehensive and not limited to its nuclear program, important as it is. They should include Iran’s missile and drone programs, and its regional role. The GCC countries have also asked to be included in those talks, as the closest neighbors to Iran, and not be sidelined. At the same time, they have opposed military action, suggested by Israel, instead favoring diplomacy coupled with robust defense and credible deterrence.

On Yemen, while stopping Houthis from attacking ships in the Red Sea is an important goal, it will be sustainable only as part of the UN-mediated political solution of the crisis in Yemen. Following the designation of the Houthis as a foreign terrorist group, the roadmap previously negotiated may be difficult to implement for the time being, calling for new creative solutions. The resulting economic squeeze together with military pressure on Sanaa should prompt the parties, led by the UN, to search for ways to sit at the negotiating table to work out practical political solutions, including the prevention of Houthi attacks on maritime trade.

On Syria, the US administration has continued Joe Biden’s cautious approach. The US deputy assistant secretary for the Levant and Syria presented Syria’s foreign minister with a list of demands at a Syria donor conference in Brussels last month: they included destruction of any remaining chemical weapons, cooperation on counterterrorism, ensuring that former foreign fighters are not installed in senior roles in Syria’s governing structure, and a more inclusive government. This list appears to be reasonable, and the US should continue to engage with the new government in Damascus, in coordination with regional partners such as Saudi Arabia. As part of that approach, it should restrain Israel from destabilizing Syria and stop its relentless attacks on the fledgling government.

Partnership with Saudi Arabia and the GCC should be central to US Middle East policy, as they share the same goals of sustainable peace and shared prosperity. In his first term, Trump enjoyed a close relationship with GCC countries. They can again be reliable and significant partners, politically, economically and strategically. US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff has said that this region had the potential to be “much bigger than Europe” in terms of its importance for the US. This can happen only if the US and GCC are able to leverage their close ties to address regional crises effectively, and increase their economic cooperation. The infrastructure is already in place in the shape of GCC-US Strategic Partnership and its counterparts between the US and individual countries.

• Dr. Abdel Aziz Aluwaisheg is the GCC assistant secretary-general for political affairs and negotiation. The views expressed here are personal and do not necessarily represent those of the GCC. X: @abuhamad1