Trump is trying to buy peace in the Middle East. It will be harder than he thinks

Donald Trump’s surprise move to lift sanctions on Syria during his trip to the Middle East marked the latest example of the President seeking to combine peacemaking with lucrative business opportunities.

Trump said the decision would give the war-torn country “a chance at peace” after meeting President Ahmed al-Sharaa, a former militant leader who remains a US-designated terrorist.

But he acknowledged another factor in the decision: a request from Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, after the two leaders agreed a record-breaking $142bn (£106.8bn) arms deal, one of several lucrative contracts signed during Trump’s tour of Gulf states this week.

“Oh, what I do for the Crown Prince,” said Trump after meeting al-Sharaa.

Peace through prosperity

The president has used his first major international trip to outline his approach to foreign relations: linking peace with prosperity and abandoning the ideological missions of his predecessors – even if it outrages his most staunch supporters.

“In recent years, far too many American presidents have been afflicted with the notion that it’s our job to look into the souls of foreign leaders and use US policy to dispense justice for their sins,” he said in a speech in Riyadh. “I believe it is God’s job to sit in judgement – my job is to defend America and to promote the fundamental interests of stability, prosperity, and peace.”

The president has appeared to use a similar playbook for peacemaking in other arenas. His administration has discussed Arctic drilling partnerships with Russia in a bid to secure a ceasefire in Ukraine, while pressing Kyiv to sign an agreement to share the proceeds of its mineral resources that critics labelled exploitative.

Trump also claimed last week that threatening trade relations with India and Pakistan helped to bring their conflict to a halt, which India denied.

Trump has been able to forge partnerships with Gulf states by foregrounding shared interests in trade and ending conflicts while abandoning efforts to impose US values, says former Middle East minister Alistair Burt.

“It is no longer the job of the US to say ‘you must introduce a Westminster-style democracy,” he said.

Security and prosperity go hand-in-hand for Middle East oligarchies, Burt added.

“Trump is a man the Gulf states can do business with, because that’s what they do. That’s what makes them safe and secure and very wealthy. And they are not made safe and wealthy by the threat of war.”

The six nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council are seeking further steps to stabilise the region such as a ceasefire in Gaza and a US-Iran nuclear deal, and have backed the Trump White House’s stated agenda to end wars and avoid new conflicts.

“Trump’s team suspect there is an alternative Middle East where you have investments and development instead of conflict,” says Dr Kristian Ulrichsen, a Middle East analyst at Rice University’s Baker Institute, noting that Trump’s contentious plan to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during his first term was titled “Peace through Prosperity.”

“Certainly in terms of the regional conflicts we see now, it’s been the Gulf states over the last few years which have been trying to help the US resolve them,” he added. “The Qataris were helping to mediate in Gaza. Oman has facilitated the US-Iran dialogue. The Saudis were instrumental in brokering this meeting with Ahmed Al-Sharaa.”

Israel sidelined

The Trump administration increasingly appears to be listening more to Gulf allies and to be more in tune with their agenda than that of the US’ traditional partner in the region, Israel, suggests Burt.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has taken opposing positions and policies to the GCC; resisting a ceasefire in Gaza and any process towards a two-state solution, carrying out sustained bombing campaigns and occupations in Lebanon and Syria, and pressing for military action against Iran.

“I think Trump has come to realise it can no longer be purely on Israel’s terms,” said the former minister.

Yossi Mekelberg, an international relations specialist at Chatham House, believes Israel is “pushing itself to the sidelines” with Trump as he seeks to reshape the region.

The US signed a truce with Yemen’s Houthi militants even as they continue attacks on Israel, he notes, while Trump broke from previous US policy in conditioning defence agreements with Saudi Arabia on normalising relations with Israel.

The President also appeared to blindside Netanyahu by announcing direct talks with Iran during a meeting between the two leaders last month, and said on Thursday the US was close to agreeing a “long term peace” with Tehran.

Responding in Trump’s terms

Trump this week raised the prospect of a brighter, wealthier future for Lebanon, a country still reeling from a devastating attacks from Israel, citing an “opportunity to forge a Lebanon that is prosperous and at peace with its neighbours.”

The President’s pitch to Lebanon, following similar messages to Syria and Iran, during his Gulf tour appeared to use the riches of his hosts as an incentive to change course, suggests Dr Ulrichsen.

“I think he’s using the Gulf as an example of what the rest of the region could be, without giving much detail” of how, he said, suggesting “part of it is about trying to wean them away from what Trump would probably call fundamentalism.”

The president made the comparison between the Gulf Arabs and the more troubled countries of the region explicit after announcing the removal of sanctions on Syria.

“So I say, good luck Syria. Show us something very special, like they’ve done, frankly, in Saudi Arabia,” he said.

Regimes such as Syria and Iran have tried to respond in Trump’s terms, Dr Ulrichsen suggests, noting al-Sharaa’s reported offer to build a Trump tower in Damascus, while Iran has held out the promise of lucrative opportunities for US business if sanctions are lifted via a nuclear deal.

Key test looms

But Trump has shown a preference for “instant gratification” in diplomacy, says Mekelberg, exemplified by the lucrative deals with his Gulf hosts, the lifting of sanctions on Syria, and the release of US-Israel soldier Edan Alexander from Hamas captivity in Gaza.

The president has backed off from ambitious commitments on Ukraine, or his tariff agenda, when they proved difficult to deliver, the analyst notes, suggesting he could face similar challenges dealing with hardened operators such as Netanyahu or the Iranian regime.

“For Iran, they won’t do anything that will risk the preservation of the regime, and for Netanyahu, it’s his own preservation,” he said. “Can Trump apply the pressure that yields the results when it gets more complex?”

Trita Parsi, co-founder of the Quincy Institute foreign policy think tank and an advisor to US negotiators on the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, also expressed concerns over the President’s commitment, and that he appears to be relying on just a handful of key staff to deliver deals.

“I think there is a significant risk about the type of follow-through that is needed, particularly when it comes to more profound shifts, such as a deal with Iran,” he said. “We saw that already under (former US President Barack) Obama, and he was extremely committed…and didn’t have the staffing problems Trump has created for himself.”

Analysts suggest a key test of Trump’s approach will come in June with a France and Saudi-brokered conference over a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Riyadh is holding out the promise of normalisation with Israel in exchange for commitment to a Palestinian state, which has the potential to transform the region.

Hugh Lovatt, a Middle East analyst at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said the “ultimate test” for Trump’s Middle Eastern policy vision “will be whether he can apply that to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.”