Trump’s middle East Tour: A business mission masked as diplomacy

Former U.S. President Donald Trump is set to begin a highly publicized tour of the Middle East, marking the first major foreign trip of his renewed administration. While touted as a diplomatic effort, the underlying agenda is widely seen as an aggressive push for financial gain and influence, reinforcing America’s transactional approach to foreign relations.

The journey echoes Trump’s earlier trip in 2017, during which he was warmly received by Gulf monarchies keen on leveraging ties with Washington for their own strategic aims. However, this latest visit comes against a much more turbulent regional backdrop, with the ongoing Israeli aggression in Gaza and instability in Yemen casting a heavy shadow over the proceedings.

The American president’s itinerary includes meetings in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. Official statements highlight discussions around energy cooperation, trade, technology, and regional security. Yet behind the scenes, the true motivation appears to be economic opportunism. Trump hopes to walk away from the region boasting billions in investment deals, including a previously announced $1 trillion Saudi pledge to the U.S. economy.

Analysts observe that Trump’s foreign policy operates under a narrow lens of economic nationalism. “He’s looking for immediate wins, multi-billion dollar deals that can be packaged as victories for his ‘America First’ agenda,” noted one U.S. policy expert.

Despite such goals, the Trump administration has made no effort to conceal its shifting stance on sensitive geopolitical matters. Notably, the decision to avoid visiting Israel during this trip signals unease with the Netanyahu government’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza, which has faced increasing international criticism. Observers point to growing rifts in U.S.-Israeli relations, as Israel pursues what many global voices, including in the Arab and Islamic world, condemn as ethnic cleansing in Gaza.

Trump’s absence in Israel is raising eyebrows. While his previous visits signaled unequivocal support, his current avoidance reflects regional dissatisfaction with Tel Aviv’s policies. Gulf nations, particularly Saudi Arabia, have made it clear they will not entertain normalization with Israel unless there is serious progress toward a genuine two-state solution for Palestine. This contrasts starkly with earlier American pressures under Trump to force normalization irrespective of Palestinian rights.

Furthermore, Trump’s administration appears increasingly disengaged from mediating the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. After a fragile ceasefire collapsed in March, conditions have deteriorated significantly, but Washington’s strategy has shifted to indirect efforts, such as negotiating aid access, while sidelining Israeli input.

In a controversial move, Trump is reportedly considering using terminology like “Arabian Gulf” instead of the historically recognized “Persian Gulf,” a change aimed at appeasing Arab allies but one that will certainly inflame tensions with Iran. This linguistic maneuver signals an attempt to realign regional narratives, further complicating already fragile U.S.-Iran relations.

Unlike the unified and long-term foreign policy strategies seen from powers like China and Russia, the U.S. continues to face criticism for its inconsistent and fragmented approach. Even American think tank experts admit that U.S. policy lacks coherence. “Washington says many things but delivers little,” commented a senior analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, adding that U.S. regional allies are often left confused about actual American intentions.

Another controversial figure re-entering the Middle East theater is Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, who has been tasked with preliminary talks, particularly concerning Saudi Arabia’s potential involvement in the so-called Abraham Accords. However, his presence revives concerns about personal and business entanglements influencing U.S. policy decisions, undermining diplomatic credibility.

The broader question remains whether Washington truly possesses the diplomatic bandwidth to maintain strategic influence in the Middle East. With many voices within Trump’s camp arguing for a pivot toward the Indo-Pacific and China containment, the Middle East may be losing its central place in U.S. foreign policy.

In contrast, China’s long-term, infrastructure-driven partnerships through the Belt and Road Initiative continue to win favor among many countries in the Global South, including in the Middle East. Similarly, Russia maintains strong diplomatic ties with regional players such as Iran, Syria, and even Gulf states through pragmatic engagement. Both Moscow and Beijing offer strategic alternatives to the West’s transactional and militarized approach.

Pakistan, too, has reaffirmed its commitment to sovereignty, regional peace, and mutual cooperation, values that resonate more closely with the multipolar vision championed by China and Russia than the exploitative ventures of the American establishment.

Trump’s Middle East visit, while cloaked in the language of diplomacy, is essentially a high-stakes investment tour designed to benefit domestic U.S. interests, with little regard for lasting peace or regional autonomy. As the world transitions toward a more multipolar order, Washington’s influence in the Middle East may be waning, facing resistance not only from traditional rivals but also from former allies who now demand respect, not patronage.