Trump’s past foreign policy has failed to reach the goal of stability and peace in West Asia, and Trump 2.0 must increase its diplomatic engagement with the region to rectify past errors
In his previous term, Trump’s foreign policy in West Asia was marked by a failure to fully address the root causes of regional instability, including the persistence of extremist groups and set the precedent for the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While this process was confirmed with the United States (US), nullifying the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the removal of other diplomatic efforts preceded this.
The withdrawal of US diplomatic efforts and nullification of previous alliances in the West Asian region leaves a vacuum for other global powers, such as China or Russia. While the Trump administration aggressively pursued “War on Terror” campaigns, it inadvertently empowered terrorist organisations and exacerbated the conditions that fuel radicalisation in West Asia. In Syria, following the precipitous withdrawal of the US in 2019, the US-backed Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces became susceptible to attacks by Türkiye-backed forces. The ensuing turbulence became the basis for the Islamic State (ISIS) to further grow in the country. Similarly, the US’s withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 led to the collapse of Kabul and Taliban control. While many conservatives globally support the “America First” agenda, and many liberals support reduced participation in high-tension areas, there is a clear need for better planning and generally, the programme has resulted in regional unrest that terrorist groups capitalise on.
Trump's policies also had a significant influence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His 2017 decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem and recognise it as Israel’s capital marked a significant shift in US foreign policy, altering the longstanding stance on East Jerusalem's disputed status and infuriating Palestinians in the surrounding regions while emboldening radical factions in Israel. The conflict was further deepened by Trump’s “Peace to Prosperity” plan, unveiled in 2020, which further fuelled tensions by proposing unilateral solutions that ignored key Palestinian demands, such as the recognition of East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state.
In 2018, the US withdrew from the JCPOA in May 2018. which, notably, limited Iran’s access to nuclear weapons. The Trump administration criticised the agreement due to its failure to meet the requirements on Iran's missile programme, regional influence, and also the “sunset clauses” that would ease several nuclear restrictions over time. The US also claimed that the agreement was not effective enough in preventing Iran from eventually acquiring nuclear weapons. This withdrawal and Trump’s hostile attitude towards Tehran fuelled further regional polarisation. Following the US withdrawal, Iran continued to comply with the deal at first but gradually reduced its compliance over time, citing the failure of European signatories to fulfil their commitments, particularly in terms of economic relief promised under the deal. In its periodic evaluation, the International Atomic Energy Agency also recorded that Iran's nuclear enrichment level was gradually increasing, marking an important departure from earlier restrictions in the JCPOA.
While Trump stated that the JCPOA was ineffective and added to the tensions in the West Asian region, current wargames suggested that Iranian-supported militias like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, benefitted from it, and nuclear war is now more probable between Iran and Israel.
While Trump stated that the JCPOA was ineffective and added to the tensions in the West Asian region, current wargames suggested that Iranian-supported militias like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, benefitted from it, and nuclear war is now more probable between Iran and Israel.
The situation further intensified as Iran ramped up its nuclear programme, particularly in its underground facilities, such as those in Fordo and Natanz. The Iranian authorities further raised the level of uranium enrichment to 60 percent from a level of 3.67 percent permitted under the JCPOA; its enrichment levels are coming closer every day to becoming weaponisable. The Trump administration reacted to Iran's reduced compliance with a “maximum pressure” campaign, enforcing severe sanctions against Iran's economy to pressure it into renegotiating the deal.
In response, Israeli authorities openly considered early action on Iran’s growing nuclear capabilities, and even today, Israel is attempting to curb Iran’s nuclear growth. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly denounced the JCPOA deal and is ramping up Israel’s covert attacks against Tehran, including the targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists. These developments are part of a broader strategy by Israel to disrupt Iran's nuclear progress and prevent its advancement in the domain, further complicating the geopolitical landscape surrounding the Iranian nuclear program.
Israel itself has never officially confirmed possessing nuclear weapons (though it is widely believed to have them). It has historically maintained the stance that a nuclear Iran would constitute an existential threat to itself. Israel, observing these uranium acquisitions, intensified its covert action against Iran's nuclear programme, having allegedly conducted both cyber and physical attacks, including the 2020 assassination of nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. More recently, Netanyahu commented on Israel's missile attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities in October and November 2024, saying he hit specific nuclear components. These measures, despite being aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions, have increased hostilities.
The road ahead for stability in West Asia calls for less black-and-white decision-making, more nuance, and certainly, more engagement with the region from the US. Instead of abandoning the region or exacerbating existing conflicts, the US must reassert its role as a diplomatic leader and facilitator of peace.
The renewed nuclear risk also had broader regional implications. Iran’s close ties with militias like Hezbollah and Hamas, which received backing from Tehran, have increased the likelihood of further proxy conflicts in the region. These organisations, equipped with advanced weaponry and supported by economic power, present a direct risk to Israel's security, thereby forcing both countries dangerously closer to war. Despite the Trump administration’s attempts to address this threat through maximum pressure tactics and signing the Abraham Accords, these actions had limited success in stabilising the region, showing a bias towards Israel’s claim to the land. They have not brought “peace in the Middle East” as was announced.
While the two countries continue to be embroiled in a tense standoff, the rest of the area has also become vulnerable. Neighbouring nations such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have started to consider whether they should develop their nuclear capabilities in reaction to concerns about the increasing Iranian nuclear threat. Such an arms race only fuelled the worries of escalating the current conflict to a wider regional scale, causing destabilisation not only in the West Asian region but also across the world. This highlights the importance of US diplomatic intervention and the consequences of its rapid withdrawals.
The road ahead for stability in West Asia calls for less black-and-white decision-making, more nuance, and certainly, more engagement with the region from the US. Instead of abandoning the region or exacerbating existing conflicts, the US must reassert its role as a diplomatic leader and facilitator of peace. The issue must be observed and approached holistically, taking into account the conflict in the Palestinian region and the rights of the people there.
Looking ahead, the US needs to reassign funds to diplomatic initiatives to help conclude the conflict in Palestine and build constructive relationships with the region’s powers to ensure nuclear de-escalation and encourage counterterrorism. Trump 2.0 now can rewrite the outcomes of the previous two terms rather than reinforce the past with further destabilisation.
Shravishtha Ajaykumar is an Associate Fellow with the Centre for Security, Strategy and Technology at the Observer Research Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Shravishtha Ajaykumar is Associate Fellow at the Centre for Security, Strategy and Technology. Her fields of research include geospatial technology, data privacy, cybersecurity, and strategic ...
Read More +
PREV
