Trump’s Foreign Policy: Prioritizing Deals Over Diplomacy in a Fractured World

Introduction: A New Approach to Global Relations

In May 2025, President Donald Trump’s Middle East tour highlighted a defining feature of his second-term foreign policy: a focus on economic deals with allies while sidestepping complex diplomatic efforts in ongoing conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Hamas conflict. His visits to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) yielded high-profile agreements, including a $600 billion economic partnership with Saudi Arabia and a $142 billion arms deal, signaling a shift toward "commerce, not chaos" as Trump’s guiding mantra. But what does this transactional approach mean for global stability, and why is Trump seemingly reluctant to engage in traditional diplomacy with rivals? This blog post dives into the nuances of Trump’s foreign policy, its implications for key global conflicts, and the potential risks and rewards of his dealmaking strategy.

The Art of the Deal: Trump’s Middle East Triumphs

Trump’s May 2025 Middle East tour was a showcase of his dealmaking prowess. In Riyadh, he inked a historic $600 billion strategic economic partnership with Saudi Arabia, including a $142 billion arms deal described as the largest in U.S. history. Qatar followed suit with a $96 billion order for 210 Boeing aircraft, while the UAE joined in with investments in U.S. technology and defense sectors. These agreements, celebrated as a “new golden era” of U.S.-Gulf relations, underscore Trump’s vision of redefining the U.S. role in the Middle East from security guarantor to economic partner.

Trump’s rhetoric during the trip was telling. Speaking to U.S. troops at Qatar’s Al Udeid Air Base, he framed the region as one moving toward “commerce, not chaos,” where nations collaborate on technology and trade rather than conflict. This vision aligns with his broader foreign policy, which prioritizes tangible economic wins over the messy, long-term work of diplomacy. The presence of business titans like Elon Musk, Sam Altman, and BlackRock’s Larry Fink at a Saudi Royal Court lunch further emphasized the commercial focus of these engagements.

Sidestepping Conflict: Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas

While Trump was quick to tout these economic victories, his approach to major global conflicts has been notably restrained. In the Russia-Ukraine war, Trump has threatened to abandon peace efforts, a stark contrast to his campaign promise to resolve the conflict “in a day.” Instead, he has prioritized economic agreements, such as a recently signed minerals deal with Ukraine, over brokering a ceasefire. Critics, including former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, argue that this transactional focus overlooks the war’s root causes, driven by Vladimir Putin’s territorial ambitions. European leaders are pushing for tougher sanctions on Russia, while Trump muses about future trade deals with Moscow, highlighting a disconnect between his approach and traditional diplomatic strategies.

Similarly, Trump has remained largely silent on the Israel-Hamas conflict, which has claimed over 53,000 Palestinian lives, a third of them children, according to Gaza’s health ministry. His controversial “freedom zone” plan for Gaza, floated during his Qatar visit, envisions transforming the war-torn region into a “Riviera of the Middle East” with international communities coexisting. However, the proposal has been widely rejected by Arab states and labeled “ethnic cleansing” by Hamas, with no clear path to implementation. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the idea “remarkable” but offered vague support, while Saudi Arabia and Qatar reiterated their stance that normalization with Israel hinges on a Palestinian state—a condition Trump’s plan does not address.

The Iran Exception: A Diplomatic Gamble

One notable exception to Trump’s deal-centric approach is his engagement with Iran, where his administration, led by envoy Steve Witkoff, is pursuing a new nuclear deal. This marks a shift from Trump’s first term, when he withdrew from the Obama-era agreement. During his Middle East tour, Trump expressed optimism about Iran’s potential to “succeed” under a new deal, coupled with threats of military action if negotiations fail. This dual approach—carrot and stick—has drawn skepticism from Israel, with Netanyahu advocating for military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities rather than diplomacy. Iran’s foreign minister dismissed Trump’s remarks as “deception,” pointing to U.S. support for Israel as a source of regional instability.

Witkoff’s lack of diplomatic experience has raised concerns about the administration’s ability to navigate these complex talks. Analysts argue that Trump’s belief that dealmaking skills translate seamlessly to geopolitics may lead to miscalculations, particularly in a region as volatile as the Middle East.

The Abraham Accords and the Palestinian Question

Trump’s push to expand the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and four Arab states during his first term, was a key goal of his Middle East tour. However, Saudi Arabia’s insistence on a Palestinian state as a prerequisite for joining the accords remains a significant hurdle. The ongoing Gaza war, intensified by Israel’s blockade and airstrikes, has made normalization politically untenable for Arab leaders, who face domestic pressure to address Palestinian suffering. Trump’s decision to skip Israel during his tour, a departure from his first term’s close alignment with Netanyahu, suggests a strategic pivot toward Gulf allies who offer immediate economic benefits.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert noted that Trump’s agenda appears “not congruent” with Netanyahu’s, signaling a potential rift. While Trump seeks to leverage Saudi wealth and influence, the unresolved Palestinian question continues to complicate his vision for regional stability.

Risks and Rewards of a Transactional Foreign Policy

Trump’s emphasis on economic agreements offers clear benefits: job creation in the U.S., strengthened ties with wealthy Gulf states, and a counterbalance to China’s growing influence in the region. Saudi Arabia and the UAE, for instance, are major trading partners with China, and Trump’s deals aim to reassert U.S. economic primacy. However, this approach carries risks. By prioritizing commerce over conflict resolution, Trump risks alienating allies like Israel and Ukraine, who rely on U.S. diplomatic and military support. His reluctance to engage deeply in the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas conflicts may also embolden adversaries like Russia and Iran, who could exploit a perceived U.S. retreat from global leadership.

Moreover, Trump’s transactional style has drawn criticism for its lack of focus on human rights. Regional activists have questioned his abandonment of U.S. efforts to pressure Gulf leaders on human rights practices, a shift from previous administrations. The withholding of aid to Gaza, Yemen, and Afghanistan to pressure Hamas, the Houthis, and the Taliban, respectively, has sparked concerns about exacerbating humanitarian crises and empowering competitors like China and BRICS nations.

Conclusion: A High-Stakes Balancing Act

Trump’s foreign policy in 2025 reflects a calculated gamble: leveraging economic deals to strengthen alliances while minimizing engagement in intractable conflicts. His Middle East tour showcased his ability to secure massive investments, but his silence on Gaza and Ukraine raises questions about the sustainability of this approach. By framing foreign policy as a series of business deals, Trump may achieve short-term wins but risks long-term instability in regions where diplomacy, not just dollars, is needed. As the world watches, the success of this strategy will depend on whether Trump can translate economic leverage into lasting geopolitical outcomes.

Thought Questions:

1. Is Trump’s focus on economic deals over diplomacy a pragmatic response to global challenges, or does it risk undermining U.S. influence in conflict zones like Ukraine and Gaza?

2. Can Trump’s “freedom zone” plan for Gaza gain traction without addressing Palestinian statehood, and what does this mean for the Abraham Accords?

3. How might Trump’s negotiations with Iran impact U.S.-Israel relations, given Netanyahu’s preference for military action?