• Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Europe logoCarnegie lettermark logo
EUNATO
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Marc Lynch"
  ],
  "type": "other",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "MEP",
  "programs": [
    "Middle East"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "Middle East"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Foreign Policy",
    "Civil Society"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Other

Belligerent Minimalism: The Trump Administration and the Middle East

Trump articulated few coherent policy ideas about the Middle East during the campaign, but taken together his combination of orientations might be termed “belligerent minimalism.”

Link Copied
By Marc Lynch
Published on Dec 7, 2016

Source: Washington Quarterly

Donald J. Trump’s election as the next President of the United States has thrown enormous doubt upon the continuity of American policy around the world. For the Middle East, Trump did not articulate a coherent policy during the campaign, but he has generally been highly critical of the Obama administration’s management of the region. Trump’s campaign sharply criticized the nuclear agreement with Iran, opposed intervention on behalf of rebels in Syria, criticized allies such as Saudi Arabia, and called for a ban on Muslim immigration to the United States. A Trump administration will undoubtedly adopt a very different stance on a wide range of issues from those familiar with eight years of the Obama administration. But while Trump presents an unusually high level of uncertainty, and his administration could do a remarkable amount of damage initially, he may find major changes more difficult to implement than he expects.

Trump articulated few coherent policy ideas about the Middle East during the campaign, but taken together his combination of orientations might be termed “belligerent minimalism.” He has criticized U.S. military interventions in the region and in particular has opposed U.S. intervention in Syria. He has labeled radical Islam the greatest threat to the United States, implying support both for greatly expanded counterterrorism operations and significant changes in the terms of engagement with Islamist movements. He is keen to work more closely with Israel and autocratic Arab regimes, while also belittling them in public and demanding they pay a greater share of the burden. He shows no interest in using presidential rhetoric to encourage democratic change, and likely cares nothing at all about (or at least sees no consequences of) popular anti-Americanism. Most critically, he shows no particular attachment to leadership of the Middle Eastern regional order, which has defined American policy for decades...

This article was originally published by the Washington Quarterly.

Read full text

About the Author

Marc Lynch

Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, Middle East Program

Marc Lynch was a nonresident senior fellow in Carnegie’s Middle East Program where his work focuses on the politics of the Arab world.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    Up Without Arms

      Marc Lynch

  • Commentary
    The Stability Story

      Marc Lynch

Marc Lynch
Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, Middle East Program
Marc Lynch
Political ReformForeign PolicyCivil SocietyNorth AmericaUnited StatesMiddle East

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Europe

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Is European Diplomacy on Iran Outdated?

    When the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding was announced, the UK, France, Germany, and Italy declared their readiness to help demine the Strait of Hormuz and lift nuclear sanctions on Tehran. But does Europe need new tools to recover a diplomatic role?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    France and Germany Need Their Own Situation Room

    The Franco-German relationship is on the rocks again. But unlike previous moments of tension, the epochal changes on the world stage require that both step up investment in their bilateral ties.

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz

  • Europe trade economy container supply chains
    Paper
    From Trade Dependence to Geopolitical Leverage: The EU in an Era of Weaponized Interdependence

    As geopolitical rivalry weaponizes global supply chains, the EU’s true vulnerability lies in emerging-risk imports. For these goods, suppliers are growing more concentrated, substitution more difficult, and political risk is looming.

      Sinan Ülgen

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    European Security Strategy: In Search of a New Ambition

    The EU is putting together a new security strategy to meet today’s myriad challenges. But for any proposal to be effective, the union needs to grapple with its identity and ambitions.

      Pierre Vimont

  • Commentary
    Reviving Kosovo-Serbia Normalization Talks

    Three years after the Ohrid Agreement, Kosovo and Serbia remain far from normalization. To revive implementation, the EU should abandon its ambiguity and act as an even-handed arbitrator.

      • +1

      Miloš Pavković, Fitim Gashi, Iliriana Gjoni, …

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
Carnegie Europe logo, white
Rue du Congrès, 151000 Brussels, Belgium
  • Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Gender Equality Plan
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.