Commentary
Marc Lynch
{
"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.”
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.
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.
- Up Without Arms
- The Stability StoryCommentary
Marc Lynch
Recent Work
Carnegie India 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 India
- What Could a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement Do for U.S.-India Ties?Article
India and the United States are close to concluding a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement (RDPA) that will allow firms from the two countries to sell to each other’s defense establishments more easily. While this may not remedy the specific grievances both sides may have regarding larger bilateral issues, an RDPA could restore some momentum, following the trade deal announcement.
Konark Bhandari
- India Signs the Pax Silica—A Counter to Pax Sinica?Commentary
On the last day of the India AI Impact Summit, India signed Pax Silica, a U.S.-led declaration seemingly focused on semiconductors. While India’s accession to the same was not entirely unforeseen, becoming a signatory nation this quickly was not on the cards either.
Konark Bhandari
- The Impact of U.S. Sanctions and Tariffs on India’s Russian Oil ImportsCommentary
This piece examines India’s response to U.S. sanctions and tariffs, specifically assessing the immediate market consequences, such as alterations in import costs, and the broader strategic implications for India’s energy security and foreign policy orientation.
Vrinda Sahai
- NISAR Soars While India-U.S. Tariff Tensions SimmerCommentary
On July 30, 2025, the United States announced 25 percent tariffs on Indian goods. While diplomatic tensions simmered on the trade front, a cosmic calm prevailed at the Sriharikota launch range. Officials from NASA and ISRO were preparing to launch an engineering marvel into space—the NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR), marking a significant milestone in the India-U.S. bilateral partnership.
Tejas Bharadwaj
- TRUST and TariffsCommentary
The India-U.S. relationship currently appears buffeted between three “Ts”—TRUST, Tariffs, and Trump.
Arun K. Singh
