In the United States, Republican candidate Donald Trump was re-elected president with a shocking result at a time when the Trumpization effect was permeating the policies of the Democratic Party.
A Democratic race that preserved most of Trump's tariffs, minimized differences with Republicans on energy policy, did not correct what they called “wrong” decisions from the previous term, and promised to stop asylum applications altogether if the influx of irregular migrants was high in order to prevent his opponent from inflating his sails with anti-immigrant sentiment, could not prevent a rich, spoiled, arrogant and criminal narcissist from turning working people, retired people and those who were stolen from the streets against him. Trump has shattered the Democrats' base as he scrapped his own party's plans to slash public spending and cozy up to the middle class and low-income earners. “Trump or Trumpified Harris?” The swing voters said “Trump.” The more his opponents Trumpize their promises, the more Trump raises the bar. Mass deportation of irregular migrants was one of them.
In addition to social-economic problems, revenge also plays a role in this outcome. In 2020, the fascist, religious, sectarian, cultist, white supremacist and conservative crews who stormed Congress thinking the election had been stolen returned with a rematch. 46 percent of Republicans said they would not recognize a result Trump lost. The only consolation of this result may be that a civil war has been averted.
There is also revenge for the shame that support for the genocide in Gaza has caused among different groups, especially Muslims. The Biden-Haris duo pretended to have 'humanitarian' concerns and became the primary partners in the genocide by providing Israel with military equipment, diplomatic cover, political protection and spokesperson support. Yes, Trump also applauded the atrocity with admiration. But the Democrats were in charge of the execution. After all, if one of the two perpetrators was inevitably going to be elected, it was a tactical choice to punish the one in power.
And Armenian revenge for Armenia being left alone in the Karabakh war. The list goes on and on.
***
What will Trump bring to our region, more war or more peace?
The Republican leader is not one to stoop to the fraud called 'values politics'. He is looking at what the whole world will sacrifice on the American altar. Not 'America for all' but 'America First!
This is why those from the Democratic front talk about the danger of 'America First' turning into 'America Alone'. Two sides of the imperial reflex!
It is like a spell that gives hope to those stuck inside. NATO partners will pay their fair share; the overlords of the Gulf, who expect protection from the US, will be able to scatter money; regional countries that want a partnership will no longer be in alliance with enemies and adversaries; failed wars like Ukraine will no longer gnaw at the American budget... Glimmers of magic!
Is the journey of a polarizing and tension-spreading negotiator beginning? What he did in the previous period was to talk tough to his enemies without going to war. There was no shortage of his foolishness that might lead to war. What can he build on the previous period? Absolute continuity or a little revision?
The two parties use different rhetoric and means to achieve the same goal. In the new era, a show of force, threatening deterrence and unilateralism may replace the false preference for 'diplomacy of values', 'negotiation first' and 'alliance engagement'.
Trump's narcissistic personality adds unpredictability to foreign relations. He can deviate from institutional preferences with split-second decisions. In the end, however, the power of Congress to regulate, brake or dictate also applies to Trump. It is a mechanism that can attach foreign policy conditions to budget bills and make the government do what it wants. They have the tools to force the president's hand. Republican majorities in the Senate and the House of Representatives could guarantee a more harmonious period between Congress and the White House. In addition, the institutional weight of the State Department, the Pentagon and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence could prevent 'one man' theater. Of course, Trump did his best to Trumpize the institutional structure in his first term. He will do it again.
Some priorities are bipartisan; Democrats and Republicans overlap or do not seek to kill each other's policies. Particularly on foreign policy. Dealing with Iran, drawing a line under Russia and containing China is an institutional policy.
For example, the Biden-Haris administration could not lift Trump's tariffs on Chinese goods. Now Trump wants to increase the tariffs to 10-20 percent on general imports and 60 percent on imports from China. In the meantime, the 20 percent tariff is also worrying Europe.
So Trump can pick up where he left off on many issues as if there had been no interruption.
***
Trump boasts that he didn't start a war when he was in power. But there is already a multi-front war going on in the Middle East. In Ukraine, too...
Trump's uncertainty is leading to big bets in areas of conflict. He cannot establish the order he wants or return to the business-oriented initiatives he started in his first term without ending existing wars, even if they did not start in his term.
“If I were president,” he says, “Russia would not have entered Ukraine.” He talks about ending the war in Ukraine within 24 hours by talking to Putin. But he does not say how this would happen. The ambiguity here suggests a two-pronged move: To escalate the firepower and force Putin into a reasonable deal, or to pull the plug on Kiev. The promise to end it in 24 hours points to the latter. If it gives Russia a victory in this way, it could raise a concern in Congress. It could also depress NATO partners who favor continuing the war. He will either be remembered as a weak leader who lost the war or as a strongman who ended it! He will have to hear Congress when he decides.
Iran is the most hotly contested issue. It is certain that he will return to a policy of crushing Iran. His previous record suggested that a strategy of attrition ruled out a war between great powers. But what if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, emboldened by Trump, attacks Iran? Despite his threatening statements against Iran, it is not a given that Trump will play the game Netanyahu wants to play. There is a threshold: if Tehran comes close to acquiring nuclear weapons, he could strike Iran together with Israel. This scenario is not ruled out for the Democratic president. Israel's attacks have provoked discussions about changing the doctrine prohibiting the acquisition of atomic weapons. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei confirmed last week that he stands against it, citing Sharia criteria. But a devastating aggression against strategic installations could change the assessment underlying the fatwa.
Some members of Trump's main team has a policy program called Project 2025. This program lists Iran as a threat along with China, Russia, North Korea and Venezuela. It proposes more sanctions, pressure on countries like China that do business with Tehran, cutting off humanitarian aid to Iran's allies (Syria and Yemen), and increasing the defense capacities of Gulf countries. In other words, it is a policy document that says “we will deal with Iran”, although it does not mention the goal of regime change. It is likely that the authors of this program will return to their old positions in the White House, State Department and Pentagon. Deterring Iran was also a key goal in the Democrats' policy document. Harris also described Iran as 'an enemy of the United States'!
In any case, the proposals recommend crushing Iran. There are dilemmas here. Sanctions on Russia and Iran have allowed China to develop advantageous relations. North Korea has also found channels to escape its isolation. Trump may have to rethink his policy of pressure, which has led to a consolidation of power between enemies and adversaries. The picture is very different from the first term. For the US, it was a strategic priority not to bring adversaries closer together. With his businessman's mind, Trump may look for ways to disrupt this equation. And the way to do this is not through war but through an agreement.
Trump has nothing to do with the spiral of retaliation between Iran and Israel. It can also be assumed that a deterrence equation has been established between the parties. Based on these two points, Trump may see a return to the old page of tension as a way out from the brink of a potential war. It is important to remember that Trump is an unpredictable president.
***
On Palestine, it is futile to expect mercy from Trump. Netanyahu was waiting for this. Netanyahu's firing of Defense Minister Yoav Galant can be seen as buying Trump's victory. But he cannot humiliate Trump the way he humiliated Biden. Trump's narcissistic personality can limit Netanyahu. When Trump supported the genocide operation, he wanted it to be completed quickly. Trump may have to weigh between endless support for Israel and the damage a protracted war would do to US regional interests and relations.
He may therefore ask Netanyahu to hurry up with whatever he is going to do and, while he is in a position of strength, to engage diplomatically and politically for the 'new order' in the Middle East. The premise that an Israel that has normalized relations with the Arabs through the Abraham Accords will be a pivotal power remains attractive in Trump's world. They could also update the previous Peace of Prosperity initiative and turn it into a new roadmap.
***
In addition to military relations with the Gulf states, CENTCOM's strategies regarding Iran, Iraq and Yemen will also be decisive. In 2019, CENTCOM's assessment also reversed the decision to withdraw troops from Syria.
For Trump, there is no reason not to continue the strategic partnership negotiations with Saudi Arabia that began under Biden. Both Democratic and Republican senators are in favor of a normalization deal with Israel. This is in line with Trump's goals with the Abraham Accords. The main question is what will be Riyadh's condition for the establishment of a Palestinian state? This condition can be overcome with vague commitments. The unfulfilled plan for a two-state solution has never disturbed Israel's occupationist-invasionist course. Will a promise to the Saudis change it?
The Saudis want to see in the partnership agreement an absolute commitment of protection in the event of a conflict with Iran. When Saudi oil facilities were attacked in 2019, Trump was whistling in the wind. He refused to use force against Iran. A tough policy against Iran is dancing on the edge of fire, but with a caution that avoids war. Trump won't commit without putting all the costs on the Saudis and getting a load of checks. Moreover, the American expectation that the Saudis limit their ties with China may become a more serious condition with Trump. But this is exactly the game Trump wants to play in the Middle East. Exploiting partners! To demand sacrifices on the American altar. Of course, the fact that Iran remains a threat ensures the American order in the region. It is a choice not to de-escalate tensions with Iran, even if they would love to cut off its arms.
As a result, one can also expect surprising moves from such a personality. American hegemony needs both threats to be used and initiatives to secure friends. While weakening the former colonialists and establishing its own sphere of influence in the region, the US had the wisdom to give some assurances to the Arabs and, when necessary, to draw red lines in front of Israel. They need openings for the reconstruction of hegemony. The initiatives they can instrumentalize are the Abraham Accords, the Peace of Prosperity, the Israel-centered transportation corridor, etc. Returning to all this requires the closure of hot fronts. What's in Trump's basket! When he wakes up in the morning, he will look and we will see.