Reflections on U.S. Foreign Policy under Trump

The Politics and Society Institute recently hosted, on Sunday evening, June 1, 2025, a closed-door roundtable featuring Professor Nathan Brown, Professor of Political Science and International Relations at George Washington University, a non-resident senior scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Professor Emeritus at the University of Jordan. Prof. Brown is one of the leading scholars on U.S. foreign policy and Middle Eastern politics. The discussion explored the evolving contours of American engagement in the region, with a particular focus on the Trump administration’s approach in its second term.

Key Notes:

• Absence of a Coherent U.S. Strategy in the Middle East: Professor Nathan Brown asserted that the United States, particularly under the Trump administration, lacked a strategic framework for the Middle East. U.S. foreign policy during this period was marked by personalisation, centralisation, and improvisation, driven more by the president’s instincts than by institutional planning. Decision-making often bypassed traditional structures, contributing to the erosion of norms and a reactive rather than strategic regional engagement.
• Enduring yet Transformed U.S.–Israel Relationship: While the U.S. commitment to Israel remains foundational, Prof. Brown highlighted how the Trump era redefined this bond. It became more aligned with the interests of domestic evangelical and far-right constituencies, rendering support to Israel largely unconditional. Despite occasional tensions, a full diplomatic rupture is unlikely. At the same time, the Israeli political landscape has shifted away from any viable peace process, rendering the two-state solution functionally obsolete.
• Rise of Fragmented Regional Engagement and Decline of Diplomacy: Brown painted a sceptical picture of U.S. engagement with broader Middle Eastern dynamics. He doubted the feasibility of a sustainable Arab-led order given the Trump administration’s transactional approach and the region’s fragmented landscape. On the Palestinian front, he emphasised the collapse of formal diplomacy and called for a renewed focus on grassroots leadership and civil society as the most viable path forward in the absence of a functioning peace process.

Professor Brown opened with a candid assessment: the United States does not currently have a clear strategy for the Middle East. What exists, he argued, are reactive impulses rather than a coherent framework. While many expect that proximity to decision-making circles in Washington offers clarity, Brown noted that the view from inside the capital can feel just as uncertain, only on a larger scale. He characterised the Trump administration’s foreign policy as highly centralised and personalised, with bilateral relations often shaped by the president’s instincts and moods rather than long-term planning. The most effective actors in the administration, he noted, are usually those who can anticipate the president’s direction and position themselves ahead of it.

When asked about the United States’ core priorities in the region, Brown highlighted the enduring centrality of Israel, though he emphasised that the nature of this relationship has shifted. American commitment to Israel remains strong and historically rooted, but under Trump, it has mainly been unconditional, driven more by domestic political calculations, particularly among evangelical and far-right constituencies, than by a structured diplomatic agenda. Despite moments of visible tension, he suggested a genuine rupture between Washington and Tel Aviv remains unlikely, as such a shift would be more damaging to Israeli leadership than to the U.S.

On Iran, the Trump administration’s approach has veered between maximum pressure and selective engagement. Brown explained that U.S. relations with Iran—and with other regional actors—are often shaped more by potential short-term gains, personal relationships, and internal dynamics within the administration than by ideology. Competing visions within the administration, coupled with the hollowing out of bureaucratic institutions like the National Security Council, have created a policymaking environment marked by inconsistency and improvisation.

Brown also addressed the erosion of institutional norms in Washington. Under Trump, decision-making has often bypassed traditional channels, and many of the unwritten rules governing executive conduct have been cast aside. Congressional oversight has been notably weak, though future electoral shifts may alter that balance. He expressed concern about a growing willingness to operate beyond the bounds of law, noting that the system has been forced to adapt to an increasingly unorthodox presidency.

On broader regional dynamics, Brown was sceptical about the prospects for a sustainable Arab-led regional order. While opportunities for collective action exist, he argued, they are unlikely to be realised given the unprecedented level of coordination required and the disruptive posture of the Trump administration. American engagement with the Middle East, he added, is increasingly fragmented and transactional, guided by bilateralism rather than any unified regional vision.

Participants raised questions about the trajectory of U.S. policy towards Syria and Lebanon, the potential for renewed Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and the evolving influence of domestic political trends such as Christian nationalism. Brown was frank in his assessment of the so-called two-state solution, describing it as a policy that has been “dead for 20 years.” Trump’s abandonment of it, he said, did not alter this reality, as the Israeli political landscape no longer supports a viable peace process. He pointed to a growing generational divide within the American Jewish community, with younger Americans increasingly viewing the Israeli-Palestinian issue through a social justice lens—something that may shape future Democratic administrations.

As for the rise of Christian nationalism in the U.S., Brown acknowledged its growing visibility but downplayed its policy-making influence, describing it as a vocal but not indispensable force. He added that American politics has increasingly turned the Middle East into a domestic issue, particularly since the Iraq War, with Christian constituencies now more vocal in their positions on regional matters than the Jewish community in some cases.

Turning to Jordan, Brown recounted an unusual episode involving a spontaneous video message by President Trump to the Jordanian people. The incident, prompted by a light-hearted exchange with Jordan’s ambassador, illustrated Trump’s unpredictable and often theatrical approach to diplomacy. While Jordan is not central to Trump’s Middle East agenda, Brown suggested that such moments reflect the personalised nature of U.S. foreign policy under this administration. Despite this, Jordan has retained the support of agencies like USAID, thanks in part to effective engagement by Jordanian officials with mid-level U.S. bureaucrats who understand the strategic value of the partnership.

Several participants pressed Brown on what Palestinians should do amid a collapsed peace process and decaying institutions. He acknowledged the deep crisis of leadership and lack of viable diplomatic channels. In the absence of formal avenues for progress, he advocated for investment in grassroots leadership and civil society. “Keep society alive”, he urged, arguing that future generations will need strong civic foundations to build upon. He also noted that the Palestine issue may resurface as a point of debate within the Democratic Party, particularly among its younger and more progressive factions.

On the academic front, Brown was measured but realistic. He recognised the constraints facing scholars in the U.S., noting a growing assault on higher education. Nevertheless, he stressed the importance of maintaining scholarly voices that are analytical and forceful, without being alarmist. Over time, he believes, such contributions remain influential in shaping public discourse.

In closing, Brown speculated on the future of U.S. foreign policy beyond Biden. Any future Republican administration, he suggested, is likely to resemble Trump’s in tone and structure. A post-Biden Democratic administration, by contrast, might align more closely with European approaches, favouring multilateralism and liberal institutionalism. The old bipartisan consensus on the Middle East, he concluded, has broken down—what comes next is still uncertain.