Trump’s Transactional Approach To Diplomacy In The Gulf

Omar Ahmed

Dhu al-Hijjah 05, 1446 2025-06-01

News & Analysis

by Omar Ahmed (News & Analysis, Crescent International Vol. 55, No. 4, Dhu al-Hijjah, 1446)

During his four-day tour of the Persian Gulf region, US President Donald Trump secured nearly $4 trillion in investment deals, including significant agreements in defense, aviation, and technology sectors. Notably, Qatar gifted Trump a $400 million Boeing 747-8 jet, intended as a temporary replacement for Air Force One, raising ethical concerns and allegations of potential bribery.

In Saudi Arabia, Trump announced a $600 billion investment package, with $142 billion earmarked for US military equipment as well as training of Saudi armed forces. Qatar committed to purchasing 210 Boeing planes worth $200 billion plus another $600 billion in investments with the potential to go up to $1.2 trillion. The UAE signed a $1.4 trillion deal to invest in the US AI sector over the next decade.

This focus on economic transactions marks a departure from previous US foreign policy approaches, which often emphasized democratic values and human rights. Trump’s strategy appears to prioritize immediate economic gains and strategic partnerships over traditional diplomatic concerns even if they were seldom meant seriously. During his recent tour, Trump dispensed with even this ritual.

In effect, the tour can be seen as a shakedown of the sheikhs—lavishly investing in the US economy rather than wielding their immense financial, political, and strategic clout—at a time when Washington is fully complicit in the ongoing genocide in Gaza.

Recalibrating Regional Alliances

Trump’s tour notably excluded the zionist entity, signaling a potential shift in US alliances in West Asia. While the Trump regime previously facilitated the Abraham Accords, promoting normalization between the occupation state and several Arab states, his recent tour suggests a reorientation toward strengthening ties with Gulf monarchies.

The president’s meetings included discussions on lifting sanctions on Syria and reviving nuclear negotiations with Iran, indicating a willingness to engage with regional actors previously marginalized by US policy.

This realignment reflects a pragmatic approach, focusing on economic and strategic interests rather than ideological alignments.

Engaging with Syria’s New Rulers

A significant development during Trump’s tour was his meeting with Syria’s interim president, Ahmad al-Sharaa, formerly known as Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, the leader of the former Al-Qaeda affiliate Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).

Al-Sharaa, who led the offensive that ousted Bashar al-Asad from power, has been seeking international legitimacy and has expressed openness to exploring normalization with the zionist entity, reversing decades of Syrian state policy.

Trump also made it quite clear his feelings to the former Al-Qaeda and Daesh member, referring to Jolani as “attractive” and “tough.”

This engagement also marks a notable shift in US policy, as HTS was previously designated a terrorist organization. Trump said he would consider lifting sanctions against Syria. His willingness to engage with Al-Sharaa indicates a strategic pivot, focusing on pragmatic alliances to stabilize the region and counterbalance Iranian influence. Al-Sharaa for his part chose to make Saudi Arabia his first foreign state visit as president, making his prioritization in mending Gulf ties evident.

Theatre and the zionist entity

Speculation that Trump is sidelining Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been interpreted in some quarters as political theatre. Tellingly, Trump recently dismissed claims that he has been side-lining Tel Aviv, “No not at all,” he told reporters. “This is good for Israel, having a relationship like I have with these countries, Middle Eastern countries, essentially all of them.”

However, these theatrics should not obscure the continued and active US role in backing the zionist entity. Washington continues to provide military, intelligence, and diplomatic cover as Tel Aviv violates ceasefires and escalates its brutal genocidal campaign in Gaza.

While Gulf regimes were entertaining Trump with luxury gifts and trillion-dollar pledges, the occupation army was once again bombarding the Gaza Strip, displacing hundreds of thousands and targeting civilian infrastructure with impunity – all of this on the 77th anniversary of the Nakba.

Despite this, the fundamentals of US-Israeli alignment remain intact, particularly in the context of the HTS-led Syrian regime’s tentative interest in normalization.

Domestic and International Repercussions

Trump’s actions have drawn criticism from various quarters. Former Vice President Mike Pence condemned his remarks criticizing past US interventions during his Saudi Arabia visit, viewing them as disrespectful to American service members. Pence also raised concerns about the ethical implications of accepting lavish gifts from foreign governments:

“The very idea that we would accept an Air Force One from Qatar I think is inconsistent with our security, with our intelligence needs ... I think it’s just a bad idea, and my hope is the president will think better of it.”

Internationally, Trump’s overtures to Persian Gulf rulers and the apparent “side-lining” of traditional allies have raised questions about the future of US foreign policy in the region. While some view this as a necessary adaptation to changing geopolitical realities, others worry about the long-term implications of such a transactional approach.

Ultimately, whether Trump achieved his purpose depends on the metrics one chooses. If success is measured by immediate financial deals and a show of diplomatic engagement with both established and emergent regional players, then his Persian Gulf tour delivered.

However, if long-term stability, credibility, and strategic coherence are the benchmarks, the outcome remains uncertain. Trump’s pivot to a transactional foreign policy, his tacit legitimization of former pariahs like Jolani, and his selective antagonism toward traditional allies suggest a volatile recalibration of US power in West Asia.