From Iraq's Invasion to the Rise of Trumpism: A Paradigm Shift
The 2003 invasion of Iraq marked a watershed moment in Middle Eastern geopolitics, fundamentally altering the regional balance of power and sowing the seeds for what would emerge as "Trumpism" in American foreign policy. This transformation represents more than a mere shift in presidential administrations—it embodies a profound recalibration of America's strategic doctrine, moving from liberal interventionism to hard-nosed realpolitik.
The Iraq War cost American taxpayers over $2 trillion according to Brown University's Costs of War Project, while destabilizing the Sunni-Shia equilibrium that had contained Iranian expansionism for decades. As Baghdad fell under Shia-dominated governance aligned with Tehran, the strategic landscape tilted decisively. This geopolitical upheaval, combined with growing American war-fatigue, created the conditions for a populist backlash against the establishment foreign policy consensus.
Donald Trump's 2016 ascent capitalized on this disillusionment, positioning himself as the antithesis of both neoconservative adventurism and liberal idealism. His blunt critique of the Iraq invasion during Republican primaries—calling it a "disaster"—shattered conventional political wisdom and resonated with voters exhausted by endless Middle Eastern entanglements. Yet Trumpism would prove to be far more than electoral opportunism; it represented a fundamental reorientation of American power projection. 🎯
Obamism vs. Trumpism: Two Competing Strategic Visions
The Obama Doctrine: Multilateral Engagement and Strategic Restraint
The Obama administration (2009-2017) operated on foundational assumptions rooted in liberal internationalism. Key tenets included multilateral diplomacy, nuclear non-proliferation through negotiation, and democracy promotion—at least rhetorically. The centerpiece of this approach was the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed in 2015, which unfroze billions in Iranian assets in exchange for temporary constraints on Tehran's nuclear program.
Obama's "leading from behind" strategy in Libya, his reluctance to enforce the chemical weapons "red line" in Syria (2013), and his distancing from traditional Arab allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt reflected a broader recalibration. Washington sought to reduce its Middle Eastern footprint while pursuing détente with Iran as a potential regional stabilizer. Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security advisor, later described this as creating "equilibrium" between Sunni powers and Iran.
For Gulf Arab states and Israel, however, this equilibrium felt like abandonment. The JCPOA was seen not as constraining Iranian ambitions but funding them—enabling increased support for Hezbollah, the Assad regime, Houthi rebels, and Iraqi militias. Brookings Institution analysis suggests Iranian regional expenditure on proxy forces increased 20-30% following sanctions relief.
The Trump Doctrine: Transactional Realism and Maximum Pressure
Trumpism emerged as a conscious rejection of Obamist principles. Its core elements include:
America First nationalism: Prioritizing direct U.S. interests over abstract values or multilateral consensus
Unilateral action: Withdrawal from international agreements perceived as disadvantageous (JCPOA, Paris Climate Accord)
Transactional diplomacy: Viewing alliances through cost-benefit analysis rather than ideological affinity
Hard power projection: Reliance on economic sanctions, military strikes, and targeted eliminations over protracted negotiations
The contrast is stark. Where Obama sought to constrain Iran through negotiation, Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal (May 2018) and imposed crippling sanctions targeting Iranian oil exports, banking, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The January 2020 drone strike that killed Qassem Soleimani—commander of the Quds Force—exemplified Trumpism's willingness to use lethal force decisively.
Walter Russell Mead's concept of "Jacksonian" foreign policy aptly describes this approach: intensely nationalist, skeptical of nation-building, but ruthless when American interests are directly threatened. Trump's Middle East policy reflected this Jacksonian impulse—eschewing democracy promotion while strengthening ties with authoritarian allies who served U.S. strategic objectives.
Iraq 2003: The Foundational Rupture That Shaped Trumpism
Destabilizing the Sunni-Shia Balance
Saddam Hussein's Iraq, despite its brutality, functioned as a critical counterweight to Iranian regional ambitions. The 2003 invasion demolished this equilibrium, replacing Sunni-dominated governance with a Shia-majority government inevitably drawn into Tehran's orbit. The subsequent sectarian civil war, rise of Al-Qaeda in Iraq (later ISIS), and entrenchment of Iranian-backed militias transformed Iraq from a bulwark against Persian expansion into a staging ground for it.
The human toll was catastrophic: conservative estimates place Iraqi civilian deaths at 200,000+, with 4,500 American troops killed and 32,000 wounded. Yet the strategic consequences arguably eclipsed even these horrific figures. Iran emerged as the de facto power broker in Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut, and Sanaa—creating what Israeli security analysts termed a "Shia Crescent" stretching from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean.
Trump's Critique: Strategic Blunder, Not Just Moral Failing
Trump's opposition to the Iraq War—though contested in its timeline and sincerity—became central to his political brand. Unlike traditional anti-war progressives who emphasized humanitarian concerns, Trump framed it as a catastrophic strategic error that strengthened adversaries and squandered American blood and treasure.
This critique resonated because it transcended partisan lines. Conservatives frustrated with endless wars and progressives opposing military intervention found common cause. More importantly, it positioned Trump as the candidate willing to challenge foreign policy orthodoxy—a theme he extended to questioning NATO burden-sharing, the Iran deal, and Palestinian aid.
The Iraq invasion's legacy thus became foundational to Trumpism: it validated skepticism toward expert consensus, demonstrated the perils of idealistic interventionism, and underscored the need for ruthless prioritization of American interests over abstract goals like democracy promotion.
Reshaping the Middle East: Allies and Adversaries Under Trumpism
Arab Gulf States: From Lecture Recipients to Strategic Partners
Perhaps no relationship better illustrates the Obama-Trump divide than U.S.-Saudi ties. The Obama administration's Iran outreach and criticism of Riyadh's Yemen intervention strained relations severely. Saudi officials perceived JCPOA as empowering their existential rival while Washington lectured them on human rights.
Trump reversed this dynamic completely. His first foreign trip as president was to Riyadh—a powerful symbolic gesture. There he announced $110 billion in arms deals (later revised figures notwithstanding) and delivered speeches lavishing praise on Gulf monarchies while demanding they increase counterterrorism financing.
The Abraham Accords (2020) represented Trumpism's crowning diplomatic achievement—normalizing relations between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. These agreements formalized what had been tacit cooperation: a Sunni Arab-Israeli axis united against Iranian expansionism. By deprioritizing the Palestinian issue, Trump acknowledged ground-level realities that diplomatic niceties had long obscured.
Critics charged this approach transformed allies into clients in an arms bazaar, selling security for petrodollars while ignoring human rights abuses. Congressional Research Service data shows U.S. arms transfers to Gulf states reached record levels under Trump. Defenders countered that clarity and mutual respect matter more than performative scolding—and that Gulf states prefer a reliable partner to an unreliable lecturer. 💰
Israel: From Special Relationship to Unprecedented Alignment
U.S.-Israel ties have always been close, but Trump elevated them to new heights. Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital and relocating the embassy, acknowledging Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and brokering normalization agreements with Arab states represented tectonic shifts.
These moves served multiple purposes: galvanizing evangelical Christian support domestically, strengthening the anti-Iran regional coalition, and rewarding a key intelligence partner. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy documented how Israeli-UAE cooperation on technology, intelligence, and commerce accelerated dramatically post-Abraham Accords.
Yet this alignment came with costs. Palestinian leadership felt betrayed, Arab public opinion grew more cynical toward normalization, and critics argued Trump's unconditional support emboldened Israeli settlement expansion and undermined two-state solution prospects. The strategic calculation was clear: Trump prioritized immediate regional stability and Iranian containment over the intractable Palestinian conflict.
Iran: Maximum Pressure and Targeted Elimination
No relationship better encapsulates Trumpism's rejection of Obamism than U.S.-Iran policy. Trump's withdrawal from JCPOA was described by supporters as correcting Obama's worst foreign policy mistake and by critics as recklessly abandoning diplomacy.
The ensuing "maximum pressure" campaign sought to cripple Iran's economy through comprehensive sanctions. Iranian oil exports plummeted from 2.5 million barrels daily (2018) to under 500,000 (2020) according to International Energy Agency data. GDP contracted 7.6% in 2019. The objective was forcing Tehran to negotiate a more comprehensive agreement addressing ballistic missiles and regional proxies—or face economic collapse.
The Soleimani strike (January 2020) demonstrated willingness to cross red lines Obama had avoided. As head of the Quds Force, Soleimani orchestrated Iranian proxy operations across the region and bore responsibility for hundreds of American deaths in Iraq. His elimination sent an unmistakable message: impunity ended.
Did maximum pressure work? The assessment remains contested. Iran accelerated uranium enrichment beyond JCPOA limits and expanded its regional network despite economic pain. International Atomic Energy Agency reports documented Iran's stockpile reaching 12 times the agreement's threshold by 2021. Yet Tehran's economic distress was undeniable, potentially constraining its adventurism. The International Institute for Strategic Studies suggested a mixed verdict: tactical successes but strategic ambiguity.
Syria and ISIS: Comparing Red Lines and Results
Obama's Syrian Quagmire: The Uncrossed Red Line
Few moments crystallized Obama's Middle East struggles more than Syria's chemical weapons crisis. After warning that their use would cross a "red line" triggering U.S. intervention, Obama declined to strike Assad's regime following the August 2013 Ghouta attack that killed 1,400+ civilians.
Instead, he accepted a Russian-brokered deal to remove Syria's declared chemical stockpile. While avoiding direct military involvement aligned with Obama's restraint philosophy, regional allies interpreted it as weakness. Russia and Iran expanded their Syrian presence dramatically, effectively winning the civil war for Assad. Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons documented continued chemical attacks despite the agreement.
The uncrossed red line became emblematic of perceived Obama administration fecklessness—emboldening adversaries and demoralizing allies. Chatham House analysis suggested this moment marked Russia's return as a major Middle Eastern player after decades of marginalization.
Trump, Syria, and ISIS: Selective Strikes and Declared Victory
Trump's Syria policy was characteristically contradictory: bombing Assad after chemical attacks (2017, 2018) while simultaneously seeking troop withdrawals. He oversaw the territorial defeat of ISIS, declaring victory in December 2018 despite continued insurgent activity.
The April 2017 Tomahawk missile strike on Shayrat Airbase following a chemical attack demonstrated willingness to act where Obama hadn't. Yet Trump remained deeply skeptical of prolonged Syrian involvement, repeatedly threatening withdrawal despite military advisors' concerns about ISIS resurgence and abandoning Kurdish allies.
The result was a hybrid approach: enough force to assert consequences for chemical weapons use, adequate support for counter-ISIS operations, but fundamental reluctance toward broader nation-building. U.S. Central Command data confirmed ISIS lost 99% of its territorial caliphate by 2019, though cells persisted.
Critics noted this created space for Russian and Turkish expansion while leaving Kurdish partners vulnerable. Supporters argued it avoided Obama's paralysis and Bush's overcommitment—taking necessary action without strategic overextension.
Trumpism in Arab Public Opinion: Clarity vs. Cynicism
Elite Approval, Popular Skepticism
Polling data from Arab Barometer and Pew Research Center revealed divergent reactions to Trump across Middle Eastern societies. Among Gulf ruling elites and security establishments, Trump enjoyed significant support. His anti-Iran stance, arms sales, and rejection of democracy promotion aligned with their interests.
Egyptian, Emirati, and Saudi officials privately expressed relief at no longer enduring lectures on political reform while facing existential security threats. Trump's transactional clarity—however crude—provided predictability absent under Obama.
Yet broader Arab public opinion remained skeptical. Many viewed Trump's Jerusalem recognition and unlimited Israel support as betraying Palestinian rights. His immigration rhetoric and "Muslim ban" executive order alienated populations already cynical toward American motives.
This elite-public divide reflects a deeper regional tension: governments prioritizing stability and Iranian containment versus populations still animated by Palestinian solidarity and anti-Western sentiment. Trumpism's appeal to pragmatic autocrats didn't translate into popular legitimacy.
The Obama Legacy: From Hope to Disappointment
Obama's 2009 Cairo speech raised expectations his administration couldn't meet. Promising a "new beginning" between America and the Muslim world, he instead presided over Libya's collapse, Syria's descent into horror, and perceived Iranian empowerment through JCPOA.
Arab Spring uprisings initially seemed to vindicate Obama's democracy rhetoric, but Washington's inconsistent responses—supporting Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood before acquiescing to Sisi's coup, bombing Libya but abandoning Syria—created impressions of confusion and betrayal.
By 2016, Arab Barometer surveys showed plummeting confidence in U.S. intentions across the region. Obama's reputation evolved from inspiring change agent to well-meaning but ineffective idealist whose policies inadvertently strengthened extremists and adversaries.
Trumpism as Global Phenomenon: Beyond Middle Eastern Borders
The Populist Nationalist Wave
Trumpism didn't emerge in isolation—it paralleled populist nationalist movements worldwide. Brexit, Viktor Orbán's Hungary, Marine Le Pen's France, Matteo Salvini's Italy, and Alternative for Germany all shared core themes: sovereignty reassertion, immigration restriction, elite rejection, and skepticism toward multilateral institutions.
Political scientist Cas Mudde identifies common threads: economic anxiety, cultural backlash against globalization, and distrust of cosmopolitan elites perceived as dismissive of ordinary citizens. These movements challenge post-Cold War liberal consensus assumptions about inevitable democratization and economic integration.
In this context, Trumpism represents the American manifestation of broader forces reshaping global politics. Foreign Affairs and Journal of Democracy published extensive analyses suggesting liberal internationalism's decline and realism's resurgence.
Is Trumpism Here to Stay?
Even after Trump's 2020 election loss, core elements of his foreign policy approach persisted under Biden. The administration maintained Trump-era tariffs on China, didn't rejoin JCPOA unconditionally, and preserved maximum pressure elements on Iran while pursuing limited negotiations.
This continuity suggests Trumpism transcended its namesake—reflecting deeper shifts in American strategic culture toward restraint, transactionalism, and competitor great power focus. Hal Brands' analysis in American Grand Strategy in the Age of Trump argues these represent durable changes unlikely to disappear with any single election.
Whether Trumpism endures as a coherent doctrine depends on proving its effectiveness. If maximum pressure achieves sustainable Iranian constraints, if Abraham Accords spawn broader regional stability, if avoiding new military quagmires while protecting interests becomes viable—then Trumpism's realist framework may define coming decades.
Opportunities and Threats for Arab States
Strategic Opportunities
Trumpism's transactional nature created openings for savvy Arab actors:
Leverage great power competition: Playing America against China and Russia to maximize concessions and autonomy
Regional leadership assertion: Filling power vacuums as U.S. reduces direct intervention
Economic diversification: Exploiting normalization with Israel for technology transfer and investment
Security guarantees: Obtaining advanced weapons systems and intelligence cooperation against shared threats
The UAE exemplified this approach—normalizing with Israel, maintaining Russian relations, investing in African influence, and positioning itself as a regional hub transcending traditional alignments.
Existential Threats
Yet Trumpism's downsides loom large:
Transactional unreliability: What's negotiated today can be renegotiated tomorrow
Security dependence: Reliance on American protection without addressing underlying governance and development challenges
Regional instability: Maximum pressure on Iran risks military escalation
Democratic atrophy: External support for authoritarian stability postpones necessary political reform
The fundamental question facing Arab states: can they exploit Trumpism's flexibility while building autonomous capabilities that reduce dependence on any American administration's whims?
Conclusion: Toward Independent Arab Strategic Vision
Obamism and Trumpism represent more than individuals—they embody competing philosophies of American global engagement. Obama's multilateral idealism sought to reshape Middle Eastern societies through soft power and negotiated agreements. Trump's nationalist realism prioritized immediate interests through hard power and bilateral deals.
For Arab states, the lesson transcends preferring one American president over another. The real strategic imperative is developing independent capabilities—economically, militarily, diplomatically—that make regional stability less dependent on Washington's political cycles.
The rise of Asian economic powers, reshaping global energy markets, and emerging multipolar order create conditions for such autonomy. Whether Arab states seize this opportunity or remain reactive clients of great powers will determine the region's trajectory far more than any American doctrine. 🌍
The critical question isn't whether Trumpism or Obamism better serves Arab interests, but whether Arab nations can transcend this binary entirely—forging a strategic vision rooted in sovereign capacity rather than external patronage. Until then, the Middle East remains hostage to whoever occupies the White House.
References & Further Reading
Research Institutions:
- Brookings Institution Middle East Program: https://www.brookings.edu/topic/middle-east-north-africa
- Carnegie Middle East Center: https://carnegie-mec.org
- Washington Institute for Near East Policy: https://www.washingtoninstitute.org
- Chatham House: https://www.chathamhouse.org
- Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS): https://www.csis.org
Data & Statistics:
- Brown University Costs of War Project: https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar
- Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI): https://sipri.org
- International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): https://www.iaea.org
Scholarly Journals:
- Foreign Affairs: https://www.foreignaffairs.com
- Foreign Policy: https://foreignpolicy.com
- Journal of Democracy: https://journalofdemocracy.org
Key Works:
- Ben Rhodes, The World As It Is (2018)
- Hal Brands, American Grand Strategy in the Age of Trump (2018)
- Walter Russell Mead, "The Jacksonian Revolt," Foreign Affairs
- Cas Mudde, The Populist Radical Right (2019)