Is Trump’s legacy responsible for the Middle East crises?

Former President Donald Trump is aggressively engaging in political rhetoric as the Biden administration contends with a complex set of crises in the Middle East. Seizing the opportunity, the leading Republican presidential candidate has exploited a recent drone attack by an Iran-affiliated militant group in Iraq, targeting a US base on the Jordanian-Syrian border and resulting in the death of three US troops with numerous others wounded. Some Republicans in Washington advocate for strong, escalatory actions, including targeted strikes within Iran.

President Biden’s apparent intention to carefully tailor the response to avoid a broader conflict with Iran provides ample material for Trump’s narrative. On social media, Trump asserted, “This audacious assault on the United States is yet another dreadful and tragic outcome of Joe Biden’s perceived weakness and surrender,” contending that such an attack on US forces in the region “would NEVER have occurred” during his presidency.

The facts

While it is true that attacks on US positions in Iraq and Syria occurred during Trump’s presidency, Trump and some fellow Republicans are attributing the perceived regional chaos to the Biden administration. They contrast this against the image of “peace through strength” that Trump aimed to portray. Trump’s approach to diplomacy with Tehran included breaking the Iran nuclear deal, reimposing sanctions on Iran, and conducting a drone strike in 2020 that killed Qasem Soleimani, a significant figure in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Additionally, Trump’s policy towards Israel involved close alignment with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a focus on the Israeli right, while adopting punitive measures against the Palestinians, such as recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, closing a U.S. consulate for Palestinians, and brokering peace deals that heavily marginalized Palestinian political aspirations.

The arguments

Upon assuming office, the Biden administration initially expressed a half-hearted commitment to restoring human rights as a focal point of US policy in the Middle East. However, this rhetoric waned as the White House pursued closer ties with Saudi Arabia and maintained the existing relationship with Israel, seeking to build on the normalization agreements initiated during the Trump era. The administration faced challenges in making progress on the Iran issue, with Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign contributing to the rise of a more hard-line and uncompromising government in Tehran. Consequently, the Iranian regime accelerated its nuclear program, abandoning the transparency measures mandated by the nuclear deal.

U.N.’s atomic agency, IAEA, recently warned that Iran’s nuclear program is advancing rapidly and called for diplomatic efforts to prevent the situation from deteriorating irreversibly. Despite this, as the White House considers potential new areas of conflict with Iran, diplomatic solutions seem to be off the table. Iran was not deterred from its nuclear aspirations; on the contrary, critics say, referring to the legacy of Trump in the region. The credibility of America’s word has diminished, contributing to the Biden administration’s challenges in re-engaging with Tehran. Additionally, the Islamic Republic has not retreated within its borders, evident in the resilience of the ‘axis of resistance’ after October 7, which unexpectedly expanded with attacks in the Red Sea by its Yemeni allies, the Houthis.

The probability of Iran developing a nuclear weapon is now significantly higher than it was in 2018 when Trump terminated the deal against the preferences of many Western allies. Iranian leaders may perceive acquiring nuclear weapons as a means to assure protection against potential attacks by Israel or the United States, allowing Iran’s “axis of resistance” to cause even greater disruption. Moreover, this moment might be seen as a significant opportunity by Iranian officials advocating for nuclear armament, especially given distractions caused by conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine, competition with China, and ongoing elections among Iran’s rivals.

If Trump contributed to the escalating threat of a nuclear Iran, he also fuelled the rightward shift in Israel. David Friedman, Trump’s ambassador to Israel, strongly supported the Jewish settler movement and openly doubted the two-state solution, the longstanding policy of both Democratic and Republican administrations. Friedman and other Trump officials emboldened Netanyahu and allies, leading to increased settlement expansions and potential annexation of parts of the West Bank. This further undermined the two-state solution when the Palestinian national movement was already in crisis and the cause received less attention from Arab governments.

The dynamics have shifted after Hamas’s October 7 attack on southern Israel and the subsequent Gaza war. Arab leaders, along with US and European officials, are now emphasizing the two-state solution as a crucial goal for regional stability. However, Trump and his allies are criticizing Biden for adopting this stance and pressuring Netanyahu’s government. They accuse Biden on continuously emphasizing the need to enforce a two-state solution, which they find insensitive at the moment. They also criticized Biden’s apparent efforts to reduce the intensity of the Israeli campaign, which has resulted in the deaths of more than 26,000 Palestinians, the majority being women and children, within a few months. During Trump’s tenure, the United States never imposed any handcuffs or limitations on Israel’s ability to respond.

In the midst of war and domestic unrest, Netanyahu may be holding on, anticipating a potential re-election for Trump, a friend and political ally. He believes that a return of Trump to power could strengthen his position and rally his far-right supporters.

While Palestinians have long criticized the United States as an unfair mediator in the conflict, the Trump administration heavily favoured the Israeli side and did not seek any concessions from Israel in return. The 2020 peace plan, much criticized, abandoned the idea of creating a viable, sovereign Palestinian state; the Palestinian leadership wasn’t even briefed on Trump’s unsuccessful “deal of the century.” Excluded from international discussions and facing an increasingly ineffective Palestinian Authority, the Palestinian public sank into deep disillusionment and despair.