Trump and the Middle East

Today I am going to return to a topic about which I wrote back in March. That is, cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump's erratic and contradictory policies related to the Middle East. The Trump administration has a Jekyll and Hyde approach to Middle East issues, providing unconditional support for Israel in some cases and plotting a more independent course in other situations. The result is a bizarre mishmash of policies that make predicting the administration's next step nearly impossible. This results in our being at a very dangerous point with regard to a possible war with Iran. Trump could easily go one way or the other when it comes to an attack on Iran.

I think Trump's policies towards the Middle East can be best understood if you picture Trump sitting at his desk in the Oval Office. On one of his shoulders is perched a miniature Marco Rubio, and on his other sits a small J. D. Vance. The shrunken Rubio and Vance each make their arguments, Rubio generally arguing strongly in support of Israel, and Vance normally taking an approach more narrowly focused on America's interests. For the most part, Trump has no interest in either of the figures and would simply like to get back to selecting more gold fixtures for the office. But, forced to deal with the competing personalities on his shoulders, he occasionally agrees with one and at other times the other. Another key figure is anti-Arab bigot Laura Loomer, though it is not exactly clear where she is perched.

Rubio has clearly won the argument where college students are concerned. Rubio is currently our country's confirmed Secretary of State, though most of those duties are actually handled by Steve Witkoff. Rubio is also the Acting Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Acting Archivist for the National Archives, and the Interim National Security Adviser. But despite all the duties and responsibilities these posts entail, Rubio seems to devote most of his time trying to deport students who have criticized Israel. Incidentally, Rubio is the current National Security Adviser because Loomer got the previous one, Mike Waltz, demoted. Rubio's obsession with students is best illustrated by the case of Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk. Rubio withdrew her student visa without notifying her. Subsequently, masked goons grabbed her off a street, shoved her into an unmarked vehicle, and hustled her through a number of federal detention facilities until she ended up in Louisiana. Lawyers on her behalf filed a habeas petition in Vermont, and a federal District Court Judge ruled that she should be returned to Vermont for a hearing on the petition. Rubio's attornies appealed the ruling but lost their appeal. This shows the lengths to which Rubio is prepared to go to keep Öztürk, accused of nothing more than coauthoring an op-ed critical of Israel, in the harsh conditions of the Louisiana prison (though his ultimate goal is to deport her).

Trump has also taken additional actions to pressure colleges and universities with regard to criticism of Israel. Trump has withheld millions in federal funds in an effort to pressure institutions of higher learning into cracking down on student protests regarding Gaza. He has even attempted to place the Middle East centers of some universities under government supervision. The Trump administration has argued that these efforts are necessary to combat antisemitism, but that justification is very hollow (especially given the number of Trump administration officials who have engaged in antisemitic acts). Even many American Jews are uncomfortable being used as the premise for Trump's actions. It is clear that Trump administration officials have been given a green light to suppress all criticism of Israel on college campuses.

While early in Trump's second term there were signs that Witkoff and hostage envoy Adam Boehler might successfully plot an independent course regarding Gaza, those hopes were soon vanquished and the Trump administration adopted former President Joe Biden's policy of unconditional support for Israel. Israel now appears to be planning the complete takeover of Gaza with hopes that its Palestinian population will flee to other countries (perhaps due to the threat of Israeli force). Trump has gone back and forth regarding such a policy, some days supporting and some days not. It is impossible to say what he actually supports.

The Signal chat that was leaked due to "The Atlantic" Editor Jeffrey Goldberg being included in the chat group showed that Trump officials were confused about whether or not Trump had authorized an attack on Yemen. Vance was in favor of a delay, while others wanted to attack right away. Ultimately, they had to bring in Stephen Miller to make a decision. None of them appeared to understand the exact reason that the U.S. would launch an attack, though they suggested multiple possible justifications. While the chat participants did not mention it, the real reason was to protect Israel. At that time, the Houthis had only threatened to attack Israeli shipping and, in fact, had not attacked any ships in months. The group had, however, attacked Israel with rockets and drones. After a month and three weeks of rocketing and bombing Yemen, Trump unexpectedly announced a ceasefire (while praising the bravery of the Houthis and not alerting Israel beforehand). In the final days of the fighting, the Houthis still managed to hit Israel's Ben Gurion Airport with a missile, showing that the U.S. attacks had not deterred the group. When asked how he would respond if the Houthis continued to attack Israel, Trump replied, "I’ll discuss that if something happens … with Israel and the Houthis." The upshot of this appears to be a return to the status quo that preceded the U.S. bombing, or perhaps even a worse situation for Israel. While initially starting the bombing to protect Israel, Trump appears to have essentially thrown Israel under the bus when it came to ending the bombing. For their part, the Houthis say that they will continue to attack Israel.

The U.S. bombing of Yemen is actually just a sideshow with the main focus of the Trump administration being on Iran. During the bombing of Yemen, the U.S. was simultaneously holding talks with Iran. Many analysts argue that the Yemen ceasefire was negotiated in order to prevent the fighting from complicating those discussions (the U.S. accuses Iran of being the main backer of the Houthis). Iran is also the subject of one of the biggest divisions between Trump supporters. War hawks surrounding Trump desperately want the U.S. to take military action against Iran, as does Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. However, much of Trump's base strongly opposes such a war. Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene recently issued a warning to Trump that included several points, but the first of them was "I campaigned for no more foreign wars. And now we are supposedly on the verge of going to war with Iran." Trump's conduct with regard to the Yemen ceasefire has been interpreted by many as a signal that Israel is on its own when it comes to Iran. As the Israeli newspaper "The Times of Israel" wrote, "With Israel on the sidelines, the president could suddenly announce a deal with Iran that leaves its nuclear program intact. Israel would find itself isolated, and unlike in the Houthi case, it would be inconceivable that it would attack Iran after an agreement with Trump." Senator Lindsay Graham, a war hawk seemed to accept that Trump was not going to do Israel's bidding, saying "To my friends in Israel, do what you have to do to protect your airspace and your people. It is long past time to consider hitting Iran hard. It wouldn’t take much to put Iran out of the oil business."

Trump seems to favor reaching agreements with enemies through direct negotiations. He enjoys being able to brag that only he could get it done. Trump also has close financial ties to the Gulf Arab states who, at the moment anyway, have little appetite for a war with Iran. Chances seem high, therefore, that a deal with Iran can be completed. For their part, the Israelis seem increasingly desperate to prevent such an agreement. While Israel has considerable influence with Trump and Israel's American supporters are not shy about throwing their weight around, they have to contend with Trump's anti-war base. In addition to Greene, Tucker Carlson has strongly opposed attacking Iran. Therefore, Israel can either attempt to sabotage an agreement or accept that the U.S. will act independently. As noted above, Graham thinks that Israel should attack Iran on its own. It is questionable, however, whether Israel can carry out such attacks without U.S. involvement.

Trump has considerable pride in the Abraham Accords that were negotiated during his first term. Now he appears to have his eyes set on an agreement with Iran. But other than that, he seems content to let Israel's supporters in his administration have their way. As a result, Israel is free to complete its genocide in Gaza, and the administration will do its best to suppress anti-Israel speech on college campuses. But there is a very real danger that the closer an agreement with Iran appears to success, the more likely it is that those opposed to such an agreement will try to sabotage it. A war with Iran could well be the outcome of such efforts.