Trump’s Gulf gambit: Delegated stability in a multipolar Middle East

In a multipolar world, according to the national security document of Donald Trump’s administration, the United States focuses on critical and dangerous priorities to confront its growing number of competitors. Yet it is clear that the Middle East is no longer a priority, even though it remains vital to complete their faltering map.

To achieve this, Washington reduces its physical presence in the region and relies on “remote management” of regional chaos, delegating responsibilities, gains, and shares to its warring allies—far from the “illusion” of resolving destructive, long-standing conflicts. In fact, Trump envisions keeping these fierce conflicts contained under the umbrella of their core interests.

Thus, it is “delegated stability” from a distance, guided by the principle of “burden-sharing,” distributing both profits and blood among allies while keeping America in control of technological, financial, and intelligence levers. With advanced capabilities, intelligence, and operational authority—and the option of decisive intervention when necessary—Washington pushes its conflicting allies to the forefront. The U.S. will therefore reduce its direct presence, not due to lack of interest, but to share costs and concentrate on more decisive arenas.

America has done this before. In 1969, Nixon adopted “ally participation” in the direct strategic burden. Similarly, Britain withdrew from “East of Suez” in the late 1960s.

Yes, after America became an oil exporter and its dependence on energy sources declined, the centrality of the Middle East diminished. Yet, despite the shift of major competition toward technology and more distant maritime supply chains, the U.S. remains committed to protecting Israel, preventing hostile forces from controlling Gulf oil, and securing vital sea routes. Trump seeks to leave his allies to manage their “eternal” conflicts themselves, without forcing American intervention, so that the Gulf states evolve from being mere “security beneficiaries” into frontline security providers—conducting naval patrols, maintaining missile deterrence, and assuming strategic responsibilities.

While this approach echoes the “twin pillar” strategy of the 1970s, which relied on regional powers to protect the Gulf, today’s policy pillars extend beyond oil to encompass military and technical integration, command-and-control networks, and joint manufacturing contracts. This strategy redefines the region as a theater for conflict and competition with international rivals, transforming allied states into economic platforms that integrate nuclear energy, artificial intelligence, and defense technologies as areas of partnership. It supports Gulf states’ ambitions to become logistical and financial hubs, leveraging their sovereign wealth funds as instruments of influence. This is the core of the regional “investment deal,” aimed at economic diversification, strengthening industrial bases, advancing AI, semiconductors, and alternative energy, and replacing fragile supply chains. In this context, money becomes central to diplomacy, rather than merely an adjunct.

Thus, technology becomes a leverage point as significant as aircraft carriers. Export controls—particularly on AI chips and advanced computing—are employed as bargaining tools to influence trust, ensure compliance, and secure alignment.

The regulatory frameworks reveal the deployment of “artificial intelligence” platforms and the nature of new agreements between the Gulf countries and the United States. Major partnerships, such as Microsoft’s collaboration with G42, underscore this approach, treating technology exchange not merely as a commercial transaction but as a test of trust and assurance.

But alas!

In our Middle East, many pitfalls lie hidden in the details of this imagined Trump blueprint, as his strategy is riddled with gaps, built on the assumption of an ideal world dominated entirely by American power.

1. The first flaw: A multipolar world has replaced the Cold War order, where the division of labor, roles, influence, and rules of conflict among the great powers is far from settled.

2. The second flaw, the delegation paradox: While Washington expects regional partners to shoulder the burden and submit to scrutiny of all technical operations, heavy compliance oversight, and constant coordination, it provides no strategic security guarantees in return to offset their reliance on international adversaries.

3. The third flaw: narrow scope of American diplomacy: This strategy requires intensive U.S. engagement in the region, which Trump’s “quick transactions” approach fails to provide amid competing regional and international priorities, some of which are inherently conflicting.

4. The fourth flaw: lack of return for regional allies: Washington asks its partners to assume routine responsibility for deterrence and defense while reserving the right to “focused and decisive actions” when its interests are threatened. This creates a highly risky operational model: short, sharp American strikes—their missiles, drones, cyberattacks, or disruptions of key waterways—impact frontline allies first and foremost. Unlike the 1980 “Carter Doctrine,” which tied Gulf security directly to vital U.S. interests, the new approach does not commit to prolonged protection of energy flows, instead favoring risk management through localized deterrence and more self-reliant regional alliances.

5. The fifth and most critical flaw: Deep regional conflicts smolder like embers under ashes, as Trump’s strategy overlooks the intensity of rivalries among the four regional strategic pillars and avoids establishing a long-term stability framework. As a result, conflicts persist and frequently flare up amid legitimacy crises, rights disputes, and contests over influence and spheres of control. It would be delusional to think such a strategy could contain them.

After failing to build nations and spread democracy with tanks in the region, the Gulf states have learned through experience—not lectures or “good intentions”—that a volatile America quickly turns away and moves on, all while demanding increased defense spending and deeper strategic integration in air, missile, and naval defense, even as they remain exposed to diverse regional and international threats.

Moreover, the United States intervenes heavily in the region’s relations with China and Russia to keep strategically sensitive sectors out of reach of its international rivals. Delegation requires oversight, oversight requires time, and time is the rarest resource in a capital that shifts its priorities as swiftly as crises unfold.

Despite these flaws and their narrow, precarious margins, Trump gambles by disrupting regional dynamics: a single miscalculation at sea or in cyberspace could sharply increase the cost of delegation for regional countries.

And alas, caught between Washington’s desire to withdraw from the details and its need to control them, diplomacy becomes nearly impossible!

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar.