The Trump administration’s newly released National Security Strategy marks a decisive break from the assumptions that have guided US foreign policy for decades. Required by law, the document traditionally serves as a statement of continuity, reassuring allies and adversaries alike that American strategic thinking evolves gradually rather than abruptly. This time, however, the strategy does the opposite. It openly challenges long-standing partnerships, rewrites regional priorities, and reframes America’s global role in unmistakably transactional terms. Nowhere is this shift clearer-or more striking-than in the Middle East, particularly the Gulf region, which emerges as the strategy’s most positive and forward-looking focus.

The initial reception of the strategy has been mixed, and in some quarters openly hostile. In Europe, the response has bordered on shock. Officials and analysts across the continent have likened the document’s tone to Vice President J.D. Vance’s controversial remarks at the Munich Security Conference earlier this year, when he openly chastised European institutions and leaders for what the administration sees as complacency, moral posturing, and economic stagnation. The strategy reinforces these criticisms, arguing that Europe’s relative decline is not accidental but the result of policy choices made within the European Union itself.

According to the document, Europe’s share of global gross domestic product has fallen from roughly 25 percent in 1990 to just 14 percent today. The administration attributes this decline partly to overregulation, weak defense spending, and an overreliance on the United States for security guarantees. In a particularly sharp departure from the Biden administration’s approach, the strategy criticizes European governments for refusing to seriously pursue a negotiated settlement to the war in Ukraine while simultaneously expecting Washington to shoulder the financial and military burden of confronting Russia.

Perhaps more unsettling for Western and Northern European capitals is the strategy’s explicit preference for “Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe” as priority partners for trade, arms sales, and political cooperation. This geographic rebalancing signals a clear downgrading of the traditional Franco-German core of the transatlantic relationship and suggests that Washington sees more reliable, interest-aligned partners elsewhere on the continent.

The strategy has also drawn criticism from South America, where many governments see echoes of the Monroe Doctrine in the administration’s rhetoric and actions. US naval operations in the Caribbean and aggressive moves against suspected drug trafficking routes have reinforced fears that Washington is reasserting unilateral dominance in the Western Hemisphere. Yet, in contrast to earlier strategic documents, Russia and China are notably less demonized. While still framed as competitors, they are not portrayed as existential threats in the same ideological terms used by the Biden administration in its 2022 strategy, a change that has likely been met with quiet relief in Moscow and Beijing.

Against this backdrop of confrontation and criticism, the Middle East stands out as the strategy’s most optimistic chapter. The document describes US policy toward the region as one of “shifting burdens, building peace,” and explicitly states that the era in which the Middle East dominated American foreign policy is now over. Importantly, this shift is not framed as abandonment. Rather, it is presented as a consequence of success.

The strategy argues that the Middle East no longer represents the constant source of crisis and catastrophe it once was. For half a century, Washington’s intense focus on the region was driven by three factors: its role as the world’s primary energy supplier, its centrality to superpower competition, and the frequency of conflicts that threatened to spill far beyond the region. According to the administration, two of these dynamics have fundamentally changed.

Energy markets, the strategy notes, have diversified dramatically. The United States has reemerged as a major energy exporter, reducing its direct dependence on Middle Eastern oil. At the same time, superpower competition in the region has shifted in America’s favor, bolstered by what the document describes as Trump’s successful revitalization of alliances with Gulf states, other Arab partners, and Israel. These developments, it argues, have allowed Washington to step back from crisis management and instead focus on long-term cooperation.

Conflict, the strategy concedes, remains the Middle East’s most persistent challenge. Iran is singled out as the “chief destabilizing force,” though the document claims Tehran has been “greatly weakened” through sanctions, regional pressure, and strategic isolation. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is described as “thorny,” but the administration credits Trump with helping secure a Gaza ceasefire and advancing efforts toward a more durable peace. These developments are presented as evidence that active diplomacy, rather than endless military engagement, can yield tangible results.

As a result, America’s historic rationale for prioritizing the Middle East is set to recede. In its place, the strategy envisions the region as both a source and destination of global investment. While oil and gas remain important, the document highlights emerging sectors such as nuclear energy, artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, and defense technologies. The Gulf, in particular, is portrayed as a hub for future-oriented economic partnerships rather than a battlefield for ideological or military struggles.

This cooperative tone stands in stark contrast to the adversarial language used elsewhere in the strategy. The United States, it says, should work with Middle Eastern partners to secure supply chains, develop open markets, and pursue joint investments extending beyond the region itself, particularly in Africa. The emphasis on triangular investment frameworks underscores the administration’s broader goal of leveraging partnerships to advance American economic interests globally.

The strategy also praises regional governments that have demonstrated a commitment to combating radicalism, arguing that this trend should be encouraged rather than undermined. Crucially, it calls for abandoning what it describes as America’s “misguided experiment” of pressuring Middle Eastern states-especially Gulf monarchies-to abandon their traditional systems of governance. Reform, the document argues, should be organic, locally driven, and respected when it emerges, not imposed from outside.

According to the strategy, the key to stable and productive relations with the Middle East lies in accepting the region as it is, while focusing on shared interests. These include ensuring that Gulf energy supplies do not fall into hostile hands, keeping vital maritime chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea open, and preventing the region from becoming an incubator for terrorism targeting American interests. Notably, the strategy insists that these goals can and should be pursued without resorting to large-scale “nation-building” wars.

The document expresses a desire to expand the Abraham Accords, both within the Middle East and across the wider Muslim world. Yet even here, the framing remains firmly America-centered. The administration argues that Trump’s ability to convene Arab leaders and foster regional cooperation ultimately serves one overriding purpose: allowing the United States to prioritize its own interests more effectively.

This emphasis raises unresolved questions, particularly regarding Israel. Given the strategy’s focus on burden sharing and aversion to costly conflicts, critics note the contradiction in Washington’s continued unconditional support for Israeli military actions that may undermine broader US objectives. While this tension is acknowledged indirectly, the strategy stops short of proposing concrete changes, suggesting that any recalibration will be gradual and politically sensitive.

Ultimately, the National Security Strategy presents Trump’s foreign policy as unapologetically results-driven. It rejects traditional ideological labels, describing itself as pragmatic without being dogmatic, strong without being reckless, and restrained without being passive. Whether one agrees with its conclusions or not, the document makes one thing clear: under this administration, the Gulf Cooperation Council states are no longer central to US strategy because of crisis, dependency, or fear, but because they are seen as capable partners in a reshaped global order.

In that sense, the Gulf is not merely a bright spot in an otherwise contentious strategy-it is the clearest expression of how the Trump administration believes American power should be exercised in the twenty-first century.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel

The post Gulf emerges as cornerstone of Trump’s new National Security Strategy appeared first on BLiTZ.

[Read More]

—–
Source: Weekly Blitz :: Writings