The Illusion of Trump’s Victory in the Middle East: Peace Myth or Power Politics?

Howard French, Foreign Policy columnist

According to Rokna, quoting Foreign Policy magazine, recent days have seen extensive speculation regarding the disparity between the relative successes of President Donald Trump’s foreign policy and his domestic performance. The reason is clear: from the moment a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza was announced, Trump has been immersed in praise for achieving what seemed an impossible outcome. This acclaim has come not only from his loyal supporters but also from long-standing critics and political opponents.

The Illusion of Victory in the Middle East: Trump’s Tumultuous Diplomacy and Gaza’s Bitter Reality

From a realistic perspective, the perception of major success in the Middle East seems exaggerated, or at least premature. A closer look at Trump’s foreign policy indicates that the claim of a significant achievement rests on shaky ground. Critics argue that Trump’s chaotic, personality-driven, and unpredictable approach to international relations is as questionable as his domestic failures.

Before examining broader patterns, several points regarding Israel and Gaza must be noted. Much of the credit and praise Trump received stems from his willingness to pressure Benjamin Netanyahu. However, if this claim holds, the remarkable aspect lies not in the “pressure applied” but in Washington’s complete passivity and compliance with Israel’s deadly and destructive approach toward Gaza—a stance that began under the late Biden administration and continued into Trump’s early presidency.

While Israel kept the Palestinian population under siege, under fire, and bombarded, neither the previous nor the current U.S. administration showed an ethical response to the crisis, even when the world described it as “genocide.” Worse, Washington continued supplying the weapons Israel used in the Gaza campaign, blocked international criticism at the United Nations, and Trump’s administration threatened domestic critics of Israel in universities and public forums. Trump even spoke crudely about turning Gaza into a massive real estate project, leaving little space for Palestinians.

As for the “praised diplomacy” that resulted in a critical ceasefire, the details regarding the future remain unclear. Like many, I am pleased with the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas, but the agreement provides almost no guidance on sustaining peace or establishing lasting order in Gaza and does not address Palestinians’ right to self-determination or the creation of an independent state.

These uncertainties raise serious concerns that once the ceasefire fervor fades and Trump’s attention shifts elsewhere, Gaza could be left abandoned again, reconstruction delayed, and Israel, as in the past, could violate the ceasefire under real or fabricated pretexts. Already, Israel has imposed restrictions on humanitarian aid distribution in Gaza, citing Hamas’ delayed return of deceased hostages—an alarming sign of a cycle that may begin anew.

Trump and the Personalization of Power in International Affairs

Looking at broader patterns in Trump’s foreign policy, what stands out most is his complete disregard for laws and long-standing U.S. political traditions. This audacity is evident in various domains, from extrajudicial executions at sea against suspected Venezuelan traffickers to sweeping cuts in U.S. foreign aid programs. His imposition of heavy visa costs on citizens of many African countries and a hostile stance toward Global South immigration further illustrate this approach.

Trump’s personalism and relational system in foreign policy are clearly visible in his $20 billion economic bailout to Argentina, an action driven not by strategic interests but by personal sympathy for Argentina’s populist and libertarian president, Javier Milei. The same pattern recurs in his dealings with Brazil and its president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, where Trump imposed punitive tariffs mainly due to ideological affinity with former president Jair Bolsonaro. He repeatedly threatened Venezuela with sanctions and even military action while negotiating the expansion of U.S. corporate presence in the country’s economy.

The most apparent manifestation of personalism, favoritism, and corruption in Trump’s diplomacy can be observed in the Middle East, the region for which he currently receives praise. Acceptance of a presidential jet from Qatar signifies a dangerous deviation from ethical and legal norms of the U.S. presidency and constitutes a worrying and potentially illegal circumvention of laws governing foreign gifts.

During his recent visit to Egypt, Trump praised Qatar as a source of limitless capital. In meetings with other Middle Eastern leaders, he made a pointed reference to President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s early support for him, alluding vaguely but meaningfully to longstanding, unresolved claims that Sisi assisted Trump’s initial electoral campaign financially. Together, these facts paint a concerning picture of Trump’s foreign policy—one built not on national interest or diplomatic principles, but on personal loyalty, financial gain, and political autocracy.

Histrionic Diplomacy vs. Purposeful Beijing Policy

Overall, Trump’s behavior in the Middle East conveys a clear message to regional countries: the White House, its president, and his family are hungry for lucrative opportunities, and financial interests can influence their decisions. This pattern is not limited to the Middle East. In a side conversation during a press briefing, Trump vaguely told Indonesia’s President Prabowo Subianto that his son Eric would contact him regarding a confidential matter—another sign of the troubling intertwining of personal and official interests.

Trump’s foreign policy has reversed U.S. historical capital, transforming America from a defender of freedom and human rights into an ally of dictators and personalist regimes—states no longer fearing accountability for human rights violations or democratic deficits because they find leadership in the U.S. president who praises authoritarianism and reduces diplomacy to a tool of transactional gain.

Ultimately, Trump’s foreign policy should be considered a failure in relation to America’s traditional rivals, Russia and China. Numerous questions remain about his relationship with Vladimir Putin, including whether secret agreements or shared economic interests explain why Trump consistently praised Putin and refrained from applying real pressure, especially regarding the Ukraine war.

Regardless of behind-the-scenes dealings, Trump has completely failed to persuade Putin to end the Ukraine conflict. By gradually reducing Washington’s support for NATO, he effectively emboldened Russia.

Regarding China, Trump’s policy has oscillated between threats and conciliation. He has at times imposed heavy tariffs and launched trade wars, and at other times attempted to ease tensions between the world’s two largest economies. However, in his diplomatic approach to Beijing, there is no sign of strategic vision, realism, or stability.

China, unlike many countries on which Trump has imposed his will, is far stronger and does not yield to U.S. pressure. It represents the greatest challenge to Washington’s foreign policy—a challenge previous U.S. administrations also failed to control. In dealings with Beijing, principles of mutual respect and behavioral balance are crucial, yet Trump has ignored both.

Meanwhile, China, despite its internal and international challenges, advances cohesively, purposefully, and strategically to strengthen national power and expand global influence, whereas the United States under Trump suffers political chaos, histrionic behavior, and ad hoc decision-making. The result is a damaged U.S. foreign policy credibility and an image of an unplanned, unstable country on the world stage. The reality is that China is not a temporary challenge but a decisive test for U.S. foreign policy. Until the United States develops a coherent, prudent, and constructive strategy for sustainable engagement with Beijing, any notion of foreign policy success under Trump remains an illusion.