How Donald Trump might tackle the Middle East in 2025

Former President Donald J. Trump won the 2024 US presidential election and will return to the White House on Jan. 20. Upon taking power, his administration will likely face a Middle East in turmoil, with wars in Gaza and potentially Lebanon raging on as well as threats from Iran and its regional network of proxies continuing.

Social and economic concerns, rather than foreign policy issues, dominated the campaign. Nonetheless, it is possible to extrapolate how the incoming second Trump administration may respond to the complex situation in the Middle East by examining the president-elect’s record during his first term, what he has said since, as well as public statements of his running-mate, Sen. J. D. Vance.

Two main issues are likely to dominate the regional agenda of the next US administration: Iran and Israeli-Palestinian affairs, the focus of this assessment. See this separate analysis for a brief look at Trump’s campaign statements on other key Middle East issues, including the fight against the Islamic State, energy policy, Egypt, and relations with the Gulf countries.

 

Iran

---

Trump believes the United States should prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and he has criticized Iran’s destabilizing actions across the region. After Israel’s latest retaliatory strike against Iran on Oct. 26, Trump expressed support for Israel’s right to defend itself against threats posed by Iran.

Five Key Positions and Statements

1. Arguing that Iran’s attacks against Israel would not have happened on his watch. A consistent narrative advanced by Trump is that the world is more chaotic today than when he was in office, and he cites Iran’s attacks on Israel as one of several examples.

• In a statement released on his Truth Social account after the Iranian attack on Israel, Trump declared that “the World is on fire and spiraling out of control” and that under his administration, “Iran was in total check. They were starved for cash, fully contained, and desperate to make a deal.” In the same post, he argued that Iran wants Kamala Harris to be president because “as long as she is in power, they can take advantage of America.”

• Trump asserted, “THIS WAR WAS TOTALLY PREVENTABLE. IT SHOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED. IF I WERE PRESIDENT, IT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED!” on his Truth Social account.

2. Making the case that Iran had access to more money because of Biden-Harris policies. Both Trump and Vance have argued that Iran’s regime has more cash today than it did under Trump’s “maximum pressure” policy approach to Iran in 2018-2021.

• In a “Fox & Friends” interview on Oct. 18, Trump repeated that during his presidency “nobody was buying oil from Iran, they wanted to make a deal. Now they have $300 billion in cash.”

• Vance, when responding to whether he would support or oppose a preemptive strike by Israel on Iran, asserted that Donald Trump “delivered stability in the world … by establishing effective deterrence.” Furthermore, he declared that under the “Kamala Harris administration [sic],” Iran has received over $100 billion in unfrozen assets, which are being used to “buy weapons that they’re now launching against our allies … and potentially launching against the United States as well.” Vance reasserted Trump’s notion of “peace through strength” and how this prompted countries to turn to the US for stability and peace when others were “out of line.”

3. Stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Trump has stated that Iran should never get a nuclear weapon.

• During a press conference in New York City on Sept. 26, Trump said that Iran “would have made a deal with us” and that “the only thing is they cannot have nuclear weapons.”

• On Oct. 4, Trump commented that Biden’s answer to whether he would support an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities should have been “hit the nuclear first, and worry about the rest later,” instead of being unsupportive of such a strike. He also underscored that nuclear weapons are the “biggest risk we have.”

4. Arguing that he could strike a deal with Iran and even bring it into the Abraham Accords. Trump has stated repeatedly that he could get a deal with Iran in a short period of time and might even bring Iran into the Abraham Accords with Israel, without providing details on how he would do so.

• When asked if he would re-negotiate a deal with Iran if he was re-elected, Trump said “Sure, I would do that” and that “we have to make a deal because the consequences are impossible.” He also asserted that Iran would have made a deal because “[he] gave them a country that wanted to make a deal. They had to. There was no money to Hamas. There was no money to Hezbollah.”

• On Sept. 19, while speaking to the Israeli-American Council, Trump commented that he “might’ve even had Iran signed” onto the Abraham Accords.

• During Trump’s interview with Al Arabiya on Oct. 20, he said that he has “respect” for Iran and its people, underscoring that they are “very smart,” “great negotiators,” and “great business people.” He declared that “as a country, [he] wants it to do great” and that now the country is “probably in danger, maybe more so than they would’ve thought a month ago with what’s happening.”

5. Highlighting the threat Iran poses to America, including assassination attempts. US intelligence and law enforcement agencies alerted Trump about Iranian plots against his life, and Trump used this information to talk about possible consequences for Iran in US retaliation.

• Trump discussed the last two assassination attempts on him, in Butler, PA, and West Palm Beach, FL, asserting that “they may or may not involve, but possibly do, Iran,” while acknowledging the lack of evidence to prove Iran’s involvement. He proceeded by declaring that if he were president, and a Republican or Democratic candidate were under threat, he would “inform the threatening country, in this case Iran, that if [they] do anything to harm this person, we are going to blow your largest cities and the country itself to smithereens.” Trump further stated that after this, “there would be no more threats” and that right now “we don’t have that leadership, or the necessary people, or necessary leaders” for that to happen.

• On Sept. 25, Trump posted on X, “Big threats on my life by Iran. The entire US Military is watching and waiting. Moves were already made by Iran that didn’t work out, but they will try again. Not a good situation for anyone….An attack on a former President is a Death Wish for the attacker!”

 

Israeli-Palestinian Affairs

---

Trump has called for the war in Gaza to come to an end, though his main message focused on making sure Israel achieves “victory,” without offering much detail. He supports efforts to advance normalization and regional integration deals like the proposed Israel-Saudi normalization accord.

Five Key Positions and Statements

1. Voicing strong support for Israel. Trump regularly touted himself as the “best friend” of Israel.

• During Trump’s speech to the Israeli-American Council in Washington on Sept. 19, he stated “we’re going to make Israel great again” and affirmed that with the Jewish American vote, he will be their “defender,” “protector,” and the “best friend Jewish Americans have ever had in the White House.” He mentioned that this US election is the “most important election in the history of Israel,” and that Israel is in “big trouble” and will be “wiped off the face of the earth” if he doesn’t win. At the same event, Trump also appeared to partly blame Jewish Americans were he to potentially lose the election, saying, “If I don't win this election — and the Jewish people would really have a lot to do with that if that happens because if 40%, I mean, 60% of the people are voting for the enemy — Israel, in my opinion, will cease to exist within two years.”

• Trump stated that the Oct. 7 attack was “one of the darkest hours in all of human history,” explaining that it was “an attack on humanity itself” that revealed “chilling savagery” and “demonic delight.” He reaffirmed that the US-Israel bond is “strong and enduring,” but will be “stronger and closer than it ever was before” if he wins the election. Trump stated, “We must stop this perilous slide into conflict, hatred, and destruction” through “unwavering American leadership and unquestioned American strength,” which would allow for “the dawn of a new, more harmonious Middle East [to be] finally within our reach.” He further underscored that “if it’s not the United States, it’s not going to happen.”

2. Supporting Israel’s right of self-defense. Trump has talked about giving Israel everything it needs to defend itself and letting it “finish the job.”

• In a phone call with Prime Minister Netanyahu earlier this month, Trump reportedly said Israel should “do what you have to do” in order to protect the country.

• During an Oct. 7 remembrance event in Florida, Trump vowed that he will “support Israel’s right to win its war on terror,” adding that “it has to win it fast, no matter what happens, it has to go fast.”

• This echoed Trump’s previous comments that Israel needs to wrap up the war against Hamas in Gaza. Speaking on the “Hugh Hewitt Show” earlier this year, Trump said, “You’ve got to get it over with, and you have to get back to normalcy. And I’m not sure that I’m loving the way they’re doing it, because you’ve got to have victory. You have to have a victory, and it’s taking a long time.”

• Speaking at the “Stand with Israel” rally on Oct. 7, Vance said, “Because we want peace more than anything else and because we’d like to prevent this from becoming a broader regional conflict, we support Israel's right to exist, we support Israel’s right to defend itself, and to do what it takes to end the war.” He later added that, “We want to give Israel the right and the ability to finish what Hamas started. Israel didn't start this, Hamas did, but Israel is going to finish it.”

• In a speech in Washington, DC, on Sept. 19, Trump pointed out that “on top of everything else, [he] gave [Israel] more than $20 billion dollars,” and that when he did it, he said he’s “the best friend they’ve ever had.”

3. Arguing that the Biden-Harris approach has prolonged the war. Both Trump and Vance regularly criticized the Biden-Harris approach to the Israel-Hamas war as weak and wavering.

• In an interview on “Fox & Friends” on Oct. 7, Vance stated that on the anniversary we should remember that there is “true barbarism” and “true evil” in the world, and that “when the good guys are against the bad guys, America should try as much as we can to support the good guys.” Vance argued that the current administration’s “wavering” and “waffling” actions have “unnecessarily killed” both Palestinians and Israelis, and prevented lasting peace from being achieved in the region.

• Vance called for “stronger and smarter” US leadership, arguing that Harris has “pursue[d] policies that prolong the war” while being at “the forefront of threatening to stab our allies in the back.” He pointed to the current administration’s decision to withhold precision guided weapons, stating that this would actually allow us to “destroy the Hamas bad guys” while “minimiz[ing] civilian casualties.”

• Speaking at a press conference in mid-August, Trump criticized Harris and the Biden administration for repeatedly calling for a cease-fire. “From the start, Harris has worked to tie Israel’s hand behind its back, demanding an immediate cease-fire, always demanding cease-fire,” which, Trump asserted, “would only give Hamas time to regroup and launch a new October 7-style attack.”

4. Supporting the Israeli strike that eliminated the leader of Hamas. Trump and Vance both voiced support for Israel’s killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar.

• When Trump was asked about his reaction to the death of Sinwar and whether it makes peace easier or more difficult in the Middle East, he responded, “My reaction is he was not a good person,” and “I think it makes it easier.” Trump continued by saying that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is “doing a good job,” that Biden is “trying to hold [Netanyahu] back and should probably be doing the opposite,” and that he is “glad that Bibi decided to do what he had to do,” while remarking that “it’s moving along pretty good.”

5. Touting his achievement in the Abraham Accords. Trump argues that the 2020 deal that normalized relations between Israel on the one hand and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco on the other would be expanded soon.

• In an interview with Al Arabiya on Oct. 20, Trump highlighted that he is “truly confident” that “real” and “lasting” peace will happen soon, while repeating that the Israel-Hamas war would not have started if he were president. He also stated that “getting everybody in” on the Abraham Accords will be a priority in his next term.

 

Conclusion: Possible Longer-Term Outlook on US Regional Policy

---

What does this mean for US policy in the Middle East in the longer term? Two scenarios could unfold — one that is stuck in the past, and a second that is more forward-looking. The first scenario, which seems more likely, is that Republicans and Democrats will continue to use a wide range of public policy issues, including Middle East foreign policy, as a partisan and ideological wedge. This has been the model the United States has operated with over the past quarter-century, and these divisions in many ways hamper America’s ability to get things done: to get diplomats and military leaders in place, to pass budgets needed to execute programs, and to advance a more cohesive national security strategy in the Middle East. The Republican Party’s strong showing in the Congressional races, including its regaining control of the US Senate, may accelerate this trend, but it is too soon to tell.

A second scenario, which seems less likely right now, is one in which leaders in both parties recognize that America’s adversaries, including Iran, have sought to stoke partisan and ideological differences inside the United States to prevent Washington from pursuing steadier and more consistent engagement in the region. One can certainly point to recent instances in Congress and the Biden and Trump administrations of when Democratic and Republican lawmakers and officials crossed the aisle and worked together on key aspects of US foreign policy on China and Russia. Once the votes are all counted and emotions come back down, the two parties’ leaders should draw lessons from the successful above-mentioned examples of bipartisanship: Democrats and Republicans can take similar steps to build coalitions across the political spectrum that seek to advance a more effective, longer-term US approach toward the Middle East.

 

Brian Katulis is Senior Fellow for US Foreign Policy and Senior Advisor to the President of the Middle East Institute.

Athena Masthoff is Policy and Program Associate at the Middle East Institute.

Photo by Brendan Gutenschwager/Anadolu via Getty Images