What Trump 2.0's Grand Strategy for the Middle East Could Look Like

Now more than two months into his second term, President Donald Trump is navigating a complex web of international crises while pushing forward an ambitious vision for the Middle East. His strategy is built on three key pillars: expanding the Abraham Accords to integrate more nations into a regional peace framework, strengthening economic and security connectivity through projects like IMEC+, and countering adversarial influences from Iran, Turkey, and other destabilizing actors. Balancing urgent security threats, diplomatic negotiations, and economic initiatives, his administration is actively working to implement these pillars while facing resistance from adversaries and the challenge of sustaining regional partnerships in an increasingly volatile environment.

In the meantime, Trump’s administration is leveraging trade agreements and major investment initiatives, including cooperation with Saudi Vision 2030, to create economic dependencies that encourage diplomatic normalization.

The inclusion of Italy in the India-Middle East-Europe Corridor ensures broader European investment and participation, making the initiative more attractive to Gulf states considering normalization.

However, the administration is yet to formulate a strategic response to a series of hurdles that have come up since Trump’s first term. Riyadh remains cautious due to domestic political considerations and its role as the custodian of Islam’s holiest sites, making normalization with Israel a sensitive issue. Furthermore, the post-October 7 world, the war in Gaza, the spread of Hamas propaganda all over the region, and Riyadh’s China-backed normalization with Iran have added layers of diplomatic, political, security, and economic complexities to any talks of advancing normalization. The Saudi foreign policy has not shifted since 2002: Riyadh will not normalize with Israel without steps towards building a Palestinian state, which is more unlikely at the moment than ever in recent years.

Certainly, no state-building is likely to occur until Hamas is definitively ousted from power. A post-war governance plan for Gaza is also up in the air. Would the Netanyahu government formalize a temporary or long-term occupation of Gaza? Would a symbolic gesture to the PA resolve the issue in the view of Riyadh? Until these questions are properly considered and addressed, the entire framework for Trump’s Grand Strategy rests on a shaky foundation.

The Saudis are not the only hesitant actors in the region. The unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to be a sticking point, with Arab states wary of backlash from their own populations if they normalize or continue to highlight and expand relations without concessions for the Palestinians. In other words, before discussing the expansion of Abraham Accords and broader regional defense cooperation, the original Abraham Accords relationships should be salvaged, preserved, and strengthened to account for the previous gaping holes that have allowed them to deteriorate quickly at the first sign of trouble.

Additionally, China and Russia are actively working to counterbalance U.S. influence in the region, offering alternative economic and security partnerships that make it harder for Trump to solidify long-term agreements. Qatar, too, while happy to play a high-profile mediation role in the Gaza conflict, is not thrilled about the prospects of Israel fully integrating with GCC states and is likely to work behind the scenes as a spoiler.

Trump’s administration is now fully engaged in an aggressive strategy to confront threats posed by Iran and Turkey. His return to office has seen an immediate escalation of measures aimed at crippling Tehran’s influence while limiting Turkey’s expansionist ambitions in Syria and the Eastern Mediterranean.

The administration has re-imposed and expanded economic sanctions targeting Iranian oil exports, banking networks, and military-linked enterprises to further pressure Tehran’s economy.

U.S. forces have been repositioned in the region, particularly in Iraq and the Persian Gulf, to deter Iranian aggression against American allies, including Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Trump has authorized multiple targeted military strikes against Iranian-backed militias in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, disrupting Tehran’s ability to project power through its regional proxies.

His administration has escalated offensive cyber operations against Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure, disrupting command-and-control networks.

Trump in the past has signaled strong opposition to Turkey’s efforts to seize military bases in Syria, including the T4 airbase, warning Ankara against encroaching on territory controlled by U.S.-backed Kurdish forces. With a pivot towards Russia and concerns reported by Israel, this opposition could continue despite aggressive lobbying from Ankara.  The question remains whether Trump will put additional pressure on Erdogan over an apparently imminent plan to seize the bases, or whether trusted liaisons like Tom Barrack, will help achieve a compromise policy.

Trump’s administration has imposed targeted sanctions on Turkish companies involved in military production, particularly those linked to UAV and missile development, to limit Ankara’s regional ambitions.

Trump is leveraging alliances within NATO to limit Turkey’s disruptive actions, pushing for military de-escalation agreements and seeking ways to curb Turkish arms deals with Russia.

The U.S. is strengthening its support for Kurdish forces in Syria and Iraq, ensuring they remain a counterbalance to both Iranian and Turkish interference in the region. However, the talks of US withdrawal from Syria are ongoing. Trump has already asked for a several drawdown option; with a new Syrian Interim Government finalized for the time being and with the US reportedly expressing support for the integration of the Syrian Defense Forces (SDF) into the unified military, US could be seeking to minimize its own role as well as expenditures associated with additional support for its allies for the long term.

Tehran has developed sophisticated methods to bypass U.S. economic sanctions, including illicit trade and leveraging support from China and Russia.

Ankara continues to maneuver between the West and its alliances with Russia and Qatar, making it difficult for Washington to isolate it completely.

Increased U.S. military action in the region carries the risk of triggering a broader conflict, which could draw in global powers and destabilize oil markets.

The India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (IMEC+) has been heralded as a transformational connectivity initiative designed to rival China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) while bolstering trade and infrastructure across key regions. Trump’s second term will see an expansion of IMEC+ to include Italy, further strengthening its European foothold and ensuring robust transcontinental trade flows.

IMEC+ aims to link India, the Arabian Gulf, and Europe through a combination of rail and maritime routes. This corridor will reduce dependence on Chinese trade networks, enhance regional economic integration, and solidify U.S. influence in global supply chains. With Italy’s participation, IMEC+ gains greater access to European markets, reducing dependency on Turkey’s increasingly erratic policies and ensuring alternative transit routes for energy and goods.

Trump’s second term is now seeing an expansion of IMEC+ to include Italy, further strengthening its European foothold and ensuring robust transcontinental trade flows.

The administration is working to establish transportation and energy corridors that bypass Iran and Turkey, reducing reliance on unstable regions.

Trump is prioritizing digital security within IMEC+ to protect critical infrastructure from cyber threats posed by hostile actors.

American companies are being encouraged to participate in infrastructure projects, ensuring long-term economic integration between the U.S. and key regional players.

Still, this initiative is fraught with logistical and political hurdles. Coordinating the infrastructure investments across multiple nations—each with distinct regulatory, financial, and strategic interests—will require careful diplomacy. Additionally, regional instability, particularly in areas like the Red Sea and the Arabian Peninsula, poses a security risk to the smooth functioning of the corridor.

Infrastructure projects in conflict-prone areas such as Yemen and Iraq face potential sabotage from hostile groups, delaying implementation and increasing costs.

Key transit nations like Iraq and Egypt face internal political upheavals that could disrupt long-term trade agreements.

Ankara views IMEC+ as a direct competitor to its own economic ambitions, increasing the likelihood of Turkish interference in regional projects.

Despite the ambitious nature of Trump's Middle East strategy, several obstacles could impede its implementation. The most immediate challenge is internal political opposition in the U.S., particularly from factions skeptical of deeper engagement in the region. Congressional opposition to military aid or economic incentives could slow down progress on key agreements.

On the international front, China and Russia will actively seek to counterbalance Trump's initiatives. China, which has deepened its economic ties with Gulf nations through BRI, will attempt to disrupt IMEC+ by offering more attractive investment packages. Meanwhile, Russia’s push for a return to military presence in Syria and its strategic relationship with Iran complicate U.S. efforts to curb regional adversaries. Despite its military being forced to leave Syria after the fall of the Assad regime, Russia still retains political influence within the Alawite areas and other parts of the country. Moscow views Syria as a strategic asset and will not give up its efforts to make a full comeback, whether by exploiting the potential US withdrawal or by engaging in temporary defense pacts with US to regain a foothold until a better opportunity arises.

In addition, the recent normalization of ties between Iran and Saudi Arabia—brokered by China—demonstrates that regional actors are diversifying their diplomatic engagements. Trump’s administration will need to convince Gulf nations that aligning closely with the U.S. is a more beneficial long-term strategy than hedging their bets with multiple global powers.

A second Trump administration will need to carefully navigate alliances, ensuring that the U.S. maintains credibility as a reliable partner. A rapid pro-Russia shift, controversial Gaza reconstruction proposals, and a general transactional approach to foreing policy are already challenging and straining these relationships. One key issue will be balancing the interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia. While both are U.S. allies, they have diverging priorities; Israel is primarily focused on countering Iranian threats, while Saudi Arabia seeks economic growth and security guarantees.

Another complex relationship is that with Egypt, which plays a critical role in regional stability. Trump will likely reinforce economic and military ties with Cairo while pressuring it to align more closely with U.S. regional objectives.

Moreover, Trump’s handling of Iraq will be crucial. With Iranian-backed militias exerting influence over Baghdad, the U.S. must ensure that Iraq does not fully tilt toward Tehran. Strengthening Iraq’s sovereignty through economic incentives and security assistance could serve as a counterweight to Iranian encroachment.

However, this initiative is fraught with logistical and political hurdles. Coordinating the infrastructure investments across multiple nations—each with distinct regulatory, financial, and strategic interests—will require careful diplomacy. Additionally, regional instability, particularly in areas like the Red Sea and the Arabian Peninsula, poses a security risk to the smooth functioning of the corridor.

Trump’s pivot toward a more cooperative relationship with Russia has the potential to reshape the Middle East geopolitical landscape. If Moscow and Washington find common ground in stabilizing Syria, countering Iranian influence, or negotiating a more structured regional security arrangement, it could reinforce Trump’s three pillars by leveraging Russia’s ties to key regional players. However, this alignment also poses challenges, as U.S. allies—particularly Israel and Gulf nations—may remain wary of Russian involvement in strategic decisions. Some of the Israelis are reportedly engaged in high-level talks with Russia and even lobbied for US to allow a Russian return to the military bases to counterbalance Turkey’s growing influence. Others, however, remain wary of Russia’s past role and political entanglement with Iran, as well as its support for Hamas and Hizbullah.  Additionally, any perceived concessions to Moscow could embolden Iran or complicate efforts to maintain a united front against adversarial influences in the region.

As Trump explores a possible new nuclear agreement with Iran, potentially mediated by Russia, the stakes for regional security and diplomacy are immense. A revised deal could alleviate some economic pressures on Tehran, reducing its incentive to fund proxy militias and escalate tensions with U.S. allies. However, skepticism remains over whether Iran would comply with stricter terms or simply use negotiations as a stalling tactic. Furthermore, if Russia plays a mediating role, it could use its influence to extract concessions that might not align with Trump’s broader strategic goals. The success or failure of such a deal will have far-reaching consequences for Trump’s Middle East vision, impacting the Abraham Accords, the strength of IMEC+, and the ability to contain Iran’s regional ambitions.

Trump’s second-term Middle East grand strategy is a multi-layered approach that seeks to expand economic and security partnerships while containing adversarial influences. The expansion of the Abraham Accords and IMEC+ underscores a vision of regional connectivity and cooperation, while his hardline stance on Iran and Turkey signals an uncompromising approach to security threats.

However, the success of this strategy depends on overcoming significant challenges, including geopolitical rivalries, logistical barriers, and internal resistance from both regional partners and domestic critics. By carefully managing alliances, ensuring diplomatic flexibility, and maintaining a strong deterrence posture, Trump’s administration has the potential to reshape the Middle East’s strategic landscape for years to come.

Irina Tsukerman is a U.S. national security lawyer, geopolitical analyst, President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a security and geopolitical risk strategic advisory, and Board Member of The Washington Outsider Center for Information Warfare.

Irina Tsukerman is a national security, hi-tech, trade and regulation,& human rights lawyer, a geopolitical analyst, and a Fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.