Trump's Resort Mentality Pushes Middle East to Rethink Failed Strategies

As President Donald Trump embarks on a massive shake-up of traditional U.S. policy at home and abroad, his controversial plans for the Middle East envision a new order in which stakeholders will put aside their complex conflicts and prioritize peace in pursuit of economic prosperity.

The explicitly transactional approach, built upon the failures of past U.S. strategies to achieve lasting peace in the region, has drawn significant backlash from all sides.

Trump's proposal of transforming the war-torn Gaza Strip into a resort-laden "Riviera of the Middle East" while transferring its roughly two million Palestinian residents to "beautiful communities" elsewhere has riled Arab leaders, who have scrambled to come up with their own plans. His offer to purse a "Verifiable Nuclear Peace Treaty" with Iran that would allow the Islamic Republic to "peacefully grow and prosper" has been met with skepticism from hawkish voices in Israel and in Washington.

The extent to which the White House is committed to either of these plans—or whether they constitute starting points for further negotiations—remains to be seen, but Trump has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to adopt disruptive approaches with friends and foes alike.

The strategy is reinforced by the former real estate mogul's distinct persona. While often divisive, his business-first approach has won him close ties to both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, also referred to by his nickname "Bibi," and Arab royals, including the leaders of Jordan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

"He has a very unique ability to maintain relationships and bring people closer together," Jason Greenblatt, former White House envoy to the Middle East during the first Trump administration, told Newsweek. "That doesn't mean he's going to solve the problem. But he has an added edge, because he gets along with all of them, because they respect him and to some degree are nervous about his methods, and because he's such an out-of-the-box thinker, which, in the case of the Gaza plan, obviously excited Bibi and angered Palestinians, Saudi Arabia and others."

"But in general, everybody understands he's right in saying, 'Hey guys, nothing, absolutely nothing has worked. We have got to figure this out,'" Greenblatt said. "So, he brings that healthy dose of ugly reality to the table. I think he is truly a historic figure."

He quipped, "You know what they say: If everybody's mad at you, you know you're doing something right."

'A Fixer of Problems'

Trump previously attempted to pursue a "Peace to Prosperity" plan for Israelis and Palestinians during his first term in office.

The proposal, widely branded the "deal of the century," would have seen Palestinians granted limited and conditional self-rule in Gaza and parts of the West Bank, with a capital on the outskirts of Jerusalem, while receiving billions in funds for development. Israel, which already considers Jerusalem as its capital, would assume further control of the West Bank and retain broad jurisdiction over Palestinian security and diplomatic affairs.

The agreement was immediately rejected by both Hamas and the Palestinian National Authority (PA), along with much of the Arab world, which had little say on the proposal prior to its announcement in January 2020. Trump, too, later reportedly soured on the deal after a spat with Netanyahu over the Israeli premier's plans to immediately annex portions of the West Bank.

Trump would, however, manage to score a major Middle East victory later that same year in the Abraham Accords. The deal ultimately saw the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco normalize ties with Israel, defying a longstanding Arab embargo and emboldening Trump to double down in pursuit of even further-reaching arrangements.

"One of his major themes is, 'Guys, we've tried a million things in the past. Nobody has succeeded, and nobody's coming up with a better answer. Do you want Palestinians to live in Gaza, suffering for years and years, living in tents? I mean, what do you want to do?'" Greenblatt, who worked on Trump's Israeli-Palestinian "Peace to Prosperity" plan and the Abraham Accords, said.

"This is the way you get it done. It's very direct and very pragmatic," he added. "Even if people are uncomfortable with the idea, maybe this idea in its whole doesn't work, but there are other ways to try to fix things. And he's very much a fixer of problems."

'A New Approach to a Petrified Situation'

Mohammed Baharoon, director general of the Dubai Public Policy Research Center, told Newsweek that the Abraham Accords "were not a peace treaty in the conventional sense," but rather "an investment in statehood of Israel (used to be called a Zionist entity) and of Palestine (preventing annexation was an investment in the territorial integrity of the state of Palestine)."

"It did provide a prototype of what peace with the region could mean to Israel," Baharoon said. "However, that was only a down payment, a show of confidence, and an enabler. It can't happen without an Israeli investment in the statehood of Palestine."

When it comes to the president's calculus this time around, Baharoon said that "Donald Trump is right in thinking that he needs a new approach to a petrified situation."

And even if Trump's talk of removing Palestinians from Gaza did not constitute a "real plan," Baharoon said, it succeeded in doing "what he wanted it to do," which was "to make other countries in the region to take charge of providing solutions."

"His approach is genuine if you address the issue as a real estate development or even as a natural disaster relief," Baharoon said. "This is what happened to people in San Francisco during the earthquake of 1906 and Tokyo after the 1923 Kanto earthquake."

"But what it didn't calculate was the political and identity aspect of a 77-year-old-struggle," he added. "However, I think his MAGA doctrine can benefit a lot for a resolution to a conflict that evaded 12 presidents before him."

Trump himself has walked back from the idea of a compulsory expulsion of Palestinians, clarifying during an interview with Fox News Radio last week that he would not "force" this solution, but rather "sit back and recommend it."

Meanwhile, his words appear to have already motivated Arab leaders toward coming up with an alternative solution as leaders from Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE met that same day in Riyadh to discuss the matter. A final proposal is reportedly forthcoming, potentially at the emergency Arab League summit to be held in Cairo on March 4.

But Trump should also not underestimate the resolve with which Arab nations may respond to his brazen attempt to sideline Palestinian agency, argued Anna Jacobs, a fellow at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington.

"Both sides will have to make compromises, but Trump's plan is essentially giving Israel's far right everything they want and completely ignoring Palestinian demands," Jacobs told Newsweek. "Trump's plan does nothing to resolve this conflict. Instead, it is attempting to erase Palestinians from the picture entirely."

After all, it may take more than just convincing the heads of Arab countries. Pro-Palestinian sentiments still run strong among the peoples of the region, and history has proven how civil unrest can quickly lead to instability even in nominally stable nations.

"Many Arab countries may not be democracies, but they do pay attention to public opinion, especially on the Palestinian issue," she said. "It is a hugely sensitive and important issue across the Arab and Islamic worlds. After the October 7 terrorist attack on Israel and the subsequent deadly war on Gaza, the Palestinian issue cannot be ignored in negotiations about Arab-Israeli normalization, period."

Debates in Washington and Tehran

Navigating successful diplomacy with Iran is in some ways an even more precarious task. The enmity between Washington and Tehran stems back decades, but with Trump it's personal.

Shortly before he unveiled the so-called "deal of the century" alongside Netanyahu in early 2020, the U.S. leader ordered the killing of Iran's revered Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force commander, Major General Qassem Soleimani, amid already heightened tensions over Trump's decision to abandon a multilateral nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic. Iranian officials have since demanded Trump be arrested and brought to trial over the slaying.

Iran has been linked by U.S. officials to several assassination plots against Trump, not including the two notable attempts on his life during the campaign trail. Tehran has consistently denied any role in such operations.

Iran has also consistently denied seeking weapons of mass destruction, yet the Islamic Republic's accelerating nuclear program continues to serve as a major flashpoint in the Middle East. Some Israeli officials have openly called for the U.S. to pursue military action against the Islamic Republic's nuclear infrastructure, particularly after Iran and Israel engaged in two series of direct strikes throughout the war in Gaza.

Trump has downplayed his enthusiasm for a U.S. attack on Iran, however, instead advertising his interest in mutually beneficial deal that would ensure Tehran could never obtain a nuclear weapon.

Jonathan Panikoff, director of the Atlantic Council's Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative, described the approach as somewhat "ironic" since it was Trump who abandoned the previous agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), in the first place. The shift may not only draw anger from Israel's emboldened far right but also aggravate divisions within Trump's own administration between an old conservative guard seeking a more assertive posture on Iran and the rising cadre of Trump loyalists who more closely share the president's vision.

"I think there's something to be said for reassessing the U.S. approach to the region, but this doesn't seem to be a strategy, it seems to reflect primarily the president's ideas but also internal disagreements I imagine will get bigger," Panikoff, who previously served as deputy national intelligence officer for the Near East at the U.S. National Intelligence Council, told Newsweek. "The first term was largely all neocons and hawks but now there's a much bigger split with isolationists and the strategy and ultimate goals don't align between them."

Meanwhile, the interim return to the first Trump administration's "maximum pressure" approach may ultimately serve to alienate rather than entice Iran toward renewed talks.

Tehran's early hesitance was evidenced by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stating earlier this month that negotiations at the U.S. at this time would not be "rational, intelligent, or honorable." Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi more recently emphasized that "there is no possibility of direct negotiations" under Trump's intensified sanctions regime.

Following his meeting with Russian Foreign Sergey Lavrov on Tuesday, however, Araghchi also spoke of ongoing consultations on the issue with China and Russia, which, utilizing its newly minted strategic partnership with Iran and rapidly improving relations with the U.S., may be poised to influence Tehran toward nuclear talks.

Panikoff noted that "Iran is not monolithic within its system and it would be a mistake to think there is not policy debate—there is, far more than in many Arab countries," particularly with reformist President Masoud Pezeshkian having openly promoted a pro-JCPOA campaign promising to improve Iran's dire economic outlook.

"At the end of the day, Pezeshkian can only operate within the bounds the supreme leader sets and execute the policy he ultimately decides on," Panikoff said. "The supreme leader believes the U.S. was dishonest and broke an agreement and doesn't trust entering into a new dialogue now is worthwhile because Washington won't uphold it ultimately."

At the same, he argued, "it's possible there could be private, behind-the-scenes efforts through Track 1.5's to keep alive the potential for a new deal."

Devils in the Details

Observers and former officials have previously told Newsweek that both sides had conveyed quiet signals regarding the prospects of U.S.-Iran diplomacy in the leadup to Trump taking office. Qatar, which played a pivotal role in mediating the Israel-Hamas ceasefire, has also expressed its willingness to support Trump in pursuing broader regional diplomacy.

But as Panikoff argued that a streamlined deal focused solely on the nuclear file and putting aside other concerns such as Iran's missile program and aid to "Axis of Resistance" militias may raise concerns for Arab partners, others argue that the key to a successful deal may lie in its simplicity.

"One prerequisite for success, namely, you don't go for a very elaborate deal," Ariel Levite, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's Nuclear Policy Program and Technology and International Affairs Program, told Newsweek. "You don't spend time, years, negotiating it, you are willing to have to exercise a lot of pressure, and you are willing to settle for less."

Levite, who previously served as the principal deputy director general for policy at the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission and deputy national adviser for defense policy, argued that, "if there would be an elaborate deal, [Khamenei] would ask for endless conditions which the U.S. will never be able to accept, and that is also not Trump's negotiating style."

Given Khamenei's public hesitance toward reentering talks with Washington, Levite suggested that the talks would be best carried out by intermediaries. And he argued "the timing is right" to do so.

'Shock Therapy'

On both the issues of Gaza and Iran, Levite described Trump's approach as a form of "shock therapy," one in which there were "incredible risks and great opportunities."

"Shock because part of it is from audacity, some of it from disregard to earlier attempts and those who tried them, some of it from ignorance and some of it from kind of a general sense that other stuff had been tried and failed. So why not rock the boat?" Levite said. "You shock people into actually getting off the seat that they have long been perched on, either to accept or to offer something in its stead."

But part of the inherent pitfalls in this new trajectory for U.S. policy lies in its extremely personalized nature, one whose success or failure may lie primarily in the ability—or inability—for leaders to read Trump himself. Levite felt that, for example, Netanyahu had potentially read too far into Trump's willingness to threaten Iran and expel Palestinians from Gaza following their latest meeting in Washington earlier this month.

"Is [Trump], for example, truly enamored with the resettlement and development of a Palestinian-free Gaza, or is he just using it to force others to come up with a better or at least more viable option?" Levite said, "same for reading what his end game is on Iran and how Trump would treat a military option to set back its nuclear program by Israel and/or the U.S. It is a very complicated and charged issue."

The other challenge Levite highlighted was that such an endeavor demands major commitments from a team of skilled diplomats dedicated to the issue at a time when Trump was also pursuing a number of other high-profile talks. Trump's Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, has earned Trump's trust as an adept negotiator given his breakthrough on the Israel-Hamas ceasefire in Gaza but he has also been tapped to play a role in putting an end to the Russia-Ukraine war, potentially limiting his bandwidth.

"I think Steve Witkoff indeed excelled in that situation," Levite said. "Now we need to come forward with something that is really from scratch, and the sensitivities and the complications and the risks are enormous."

"By the way," he added, "so are they if the whole thing is left unattended."