The Illusion of Stability: Trump’s Return and the Militarisation of U.S. Policy in the Middle East.

By Rosalia Perna

Donald Trump’s return to the presidency in 2025 has revived a contentious vision for U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Framed by his administration as a blueprint for peace, the so-called “Trump’s Peace” instead presents a volatile mixture of coercive diplomacy, military escalation, and regional upheaval. What Trump touts as peace through strength increasingly appears to be a high-risk strategy that destabilizes more than it secures.

Trump’s foreign policy has been shaped less by multilateral consensus than by unilateral decisions and assertive displays of American military power. His administration approaches international relations through transactional logic, treating diplomacy as a secondary tool rather than a foundational practice.

Gaza as a Testing Ground for Unilateralism

In February 2025, shortly after taking office, the Trump administration floated a controversial proposal to resettle Gaza’s approximately two million residents in Egypt and Jordan. In theory, the plan aimed to clear the path for an ambitious economic redevelopment project—framed by supporters as a transformative opportunity akin to “turning Gaza into the next Dubai.”

In reality, the proposal provoked widespread condemnation. Egyptian and Jordanian officials rejected it outright, characterizing it as a form of forced displacement veiled in economic language. The Arab League denounced the plan as both unethical and politically unfeasible. Even close allies such as Saudi Arabia declined to publicly support it, signaling discomfort with the plan’s implications.

Palestinians responded with immediate protests and denunciations. The West Bank witnessed mass demonstrations, and already-fragile infrastructure in Gaza continued to erode. The Trump administration’s subsequent pressure campaign—offering financial incentives to compliant states and threatening punitive measures to those who resisted—only intensified criticism from international observers. Foreign policy experts widely regarded the maneuver as a misguided attempt at population engineering that ignored on-the-ground realities and regional sensitivities.

Escalation in Iran: Strategic Clarity or Reckless Provocation?

On June 22, the Trump administration escalated tensions dramatically by authorizing a coordinated strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Targeting major facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, the U.S. military employed bunker-busting munitions and Tomahawk missiles. Trump declared the operation a "spectacular success," claiming it had disrupted Iran’s nuclear ambitions for the foreseeable future.

The international response reflected deep divisions. Israel praised the action as a long-overdue move toward regional security. Russia labeled the attack a “flagrant violation of sovereignty,” while China warned of cascading consequences that could affect global stability. In Europe, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer emphasized the importance of de-escalation and urged Iran to return to the negotiating table. According to Downing Street, Starmer reaffirmed that regional stability remains a top priority. Similarly, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas issued a pointed call for de-escalation and a return to negotiations.

Domestically, the operation triggered bipartisan criticism. While some Republicans hailed it as decisive, others—including Senator Rand Paul—questioned the legality of launching such a strike without Congressional authorization. Democratic leaders cited violations of the War Powers Act and cautioned against the absence of a long-term strategic framework. Critics across the political spectrum highlighted the risk of entrenching the U.S. in yet another protracted Middle Eastern conflict.

Diplomatic Isolation and Strategic Drift

Trump’s Middle East strategy prioritizes dominance over dialogue. By sidelining traditional diplomacy in favor of military coercion and economic threats, the administration has marginalized the U.S. from key regional and international negotiations.

Despite the administration’s aggressive posture, diplomatic channels have not closed entirely. European nations and United Nations officials are attempting to revive backchannel diplomacy. France and Germany have initiated emergency discussions within the UN Security Council. Meanwhile, Gulf states such as Oman and Qatar are facilitating unofficial talks in an effort to reduce regional volatility.

Regional actors are adapting defensively. Saudi Arabia is strengthening missile defense systems, Turkey has intensified border surveillance, and even Israel—Trump’s closest regional ally—has quietly begun engaging with Russia and India to hedge against future instability.

Structural Weakness in the “Trump’s Peace” Framework

The Trump administration’s peace doctrine relies on transactional power dynamics: neutralize perceived threats, redefine territorial arrangements, and then negotiate from a superior position. This militarized model discounts the political complexities and deep-seated historical grievances that define the region.

Fundamentally, the so called “Peace” suffers from a lack of regional buy-in. Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia are unwilling to endorse a plan that disregards national interests and public opinion. Iran, under direct military assault, is unlikely to enter negotiations in good faith.

Reports from within the administration suggest internal unease. Both National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have reportedly raised concerns about the lack of a stabilization plan post-intervention. NATO allies are increasingly critical. German Chancellor Annalena Baerbock described the strategy as "incoherent and diplomatically hazardous."

Beyond tactical challenges, the administration lacks a vision for sustainable governance in regions affected by its policies. Key questions remain unresolved: Who will administer Gaza if its population is forcibly displaced? What mechanisms exist to rebuild trust with Iran or its proxies? How will the U.S. fill the inevitable power vacuums created by military actions?

Conclusion: From Strategy to Instability

The so-called “Trump’s Peace” is more of an illusion than peace model. It projects strength while neglecting the long-term diplomatic architecture necessary for sustainable stability. Instead of fostering cooperation, it generates resistance and accelerates fragmentation across the Middle East.

History offers ample evidence of the failure of force-centric strategies in the region. The legacies of the Iraq War, the Syrian conflict, and the collapse of Libya continue to haunt Western policymaking. Trump’s strategy, though packaged as innovative, risks repeating these patterns under a different rhetorical banner.

For now, the Middle East remains caught between great-power competition, regional rivalries, and internal unrest. Trump’s aggressive policies have reshuffled the diplomatic deck—but without careful, inclusive, and sustained engagement, the endgame may resemble chaos more than peace.