Trump’s National Security Strategy: A Transactional Middle East

WASHINGTON — The 2025 National Security Strategy treats the Middle East less as a centrepiece of American foreign policy and more as a zone of limited, transactional engagement. The language is spare. The tone is pragmatic. Gone are the sweeping promises of democracy promotion. In their place: energy security, critical minerals, technology partnerships, and a handful of peace deals presented as proof of Trump’s “President of Peace” legacy.

The document makes clear that the region is no longer the heart of U.S. strategy. America’s own energy production has reduced dependence on Gulf oil, and the strategy insists that “forever wars” are over. What remains is a narrower set of priorities. Energy dominance. Counterterrorism when necessary. Deals that can be signed and showcased.

Peace agreements are highlighted prominently. The text points to Trump’s claimed role in ending the Gaza war with hostages returned, arranging rapprochement between Israel and Iran, and brokering settlements involving Egypt and Ethiopia. Each is presented as evidence of a new, deal‑driven approach. Critics note that the framing avoids deeper questions of governance or human rights, preferring to celebrate transactional wins.

The Gulf monarchies receive favourable treatment. The strategy rejects “hectoring” allies about reform and instead praises changes only when they arise on their own. In effect, the U.S. is choosing to work with these governments as they are, rather than pressing them to alter their political systems. Rather than criticizing or applying pressure on issues of democracy or human rights, the document signals that America will welcome reforms if and when they happen internally. In practice, Washington is prioritizing cooperation on energy, security, and technology, while leaving questions of governance to the countries themselves.

Partnerships with Arab states and Israel are framed around advanced technology — artificial intelligence, nuclear energy, and defence systems. Analysts see this approach as consistent with Trump’s broader posture: friendly to regimes where his family has longstanding business ties, though the strategy itself makes no mention of those interests.

Iran is singled out as a continuing threat. The document cites “Operation Midnight Hammer,” a June 2025 strike that degraded Tehran’s nuclear program, as proof of resolve. Yet even here the emphasis is on deterrence and leverage rather than open‑ended conflict.

The internal logic is clear. The Middle East is no longer a theatre for ideological crusades. It is a place for energy, technology, and transactional diplomacy. The trade‑offs are equally clear. Favouring Gulf monarchies may secure cooperation but risks criticism from human‑rights advocates. Highlighting peace deals may boost prestige but leaves unresolved the deeper fractures of the region.

Comparison Table: U.S. Strategy in the Middle East

Aspect	NSS Position	Implications
Energy	Restoring U.S. energy dominance; Gulf partnerships	Reduces reliance on imports; aligns with Gulf investment interests
Peace Deals	Highlights Trump’s claimed mediation (Israel–Iran, Gaza, Egypt–Ethiopia)	Boosts diplomatic prestige; transactional wins over structural change
Governance	Rejects “hectoring” Gulf monarchies; applauds organic reform	Seen as favourable to regimes; avoids human‑rights pressure
Technology	Partnerships in AI, nuclear energy, defence	Positions Gulf states as tech partners; overlaps with sovereign wealth investment
Iran	Operation Midnight Hammer cited as deterrence	Demonstrates military resolve; avoids long‑term entanglement

The bottom line is blunt. The Middle East in Trump’s NSS is treated as a zone of deals, deterrence, and energy, not democracy or transformation. Whether this narrower, transactional vision stabilizes the region or simply entrenches existing power structures will depend less on the document’s prose than on the alliances — and the criticisms — that follow.

Image credit: Screen grab from the White House National Security Strategy (2025) paper.