In an exclusive interview conducted by Stratheia with Dr. Andrew Korybko, a Moscow-based American political analyst specializing in the global systemic transition to multipolarity, we uncover the intricate dynamics shaping President Trump’s Middle East policy. The narrative of Trump’s approach unfolds not as a series of isolated events but as a complex storyline driven by strategic ambition, bureaucratic inertia, and external constraints.

Trump’s presidency has been characterized by an overarching goal to ‘Pivot (back) to Asia.

Trump’s presidency has been characterized by an overarching goal to “Pivot (back) to Asia,” aiming to redirect U.S. focus towards the Indo-Pacific region and the growing challenge posed by China. Central to this ambition is his reluctance to entangle the United States in regional wars, particularly in areas such as Eastern Europe, West Asia, and beyond.

This intent was evident in his recent statements on Syria, where he reiterated the necessity for the U.S. to remain uninvolved in the Syrian War. Similarly, his remarks about Hamas and hostages highlight a preference for limited, outcome-driven engagements over prolonged military entanglements.

The so-called ‘deep state’ has historically undermined his foreign policy objectives.

However, Trump’s vision faces formidable obstacles. As Dr. Korybko explains, the so-called “deep state”—the entrenched network of permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies—has historically undermined his foreign policy objectives.

During his first term, Trump’s efforts to achieve rapprochement with Russia were derailed by bureaucratic pressures that led to tightened sanctions and military aid to Ukraine. Similarly, his aspirations for a U.S. withdrawal from Syria were thwarted, forcing him to maintain a presence in the region despite his initial inclinations.

“Trump has learned a lot since his first term,” Dr. Korybko observes. “He’s less likely to be swayed by the same forces now, which might allow him to focus more assertively on containing China.” This potential shift suggests a recalibrated strategy that prioritizes global competition with China over entrenched conflicts in the Middle East.

Trump has learned a lot since his first term, which might allow him to focus more assertively on containing China.

Yet, the region’s volatile dynamics could complicate Trump’s plans. The Syrian War, for instance, has the potential to ignite new conflicts, whether through intra-Arab rivalries or escalations between Turkey and Kurdish factions. The Biden Administration’s policies might also leave a legacy of commitments that Trump would find challenging to unravel, creating a cascade of strategic inertia. “It’s difficult to forecast the exact regional conditions Trump will inherit,” Dr. Korybko notes, “but they will undoubtedly influence how he balances his broader strategic goals.”

The story of Trump’s approach to the region is as much about navigating entrenched bureaucratic structures as reshaping U.S. global priorities.

Trump’s evolving Middle East policy exemplifies the tension between grand strategic ambitions and the realities of governance. As Dr. Korybko’s insights illuminate, the story of Trump’s approach to the region is as much about navigating entrenched bureaucratic structures as it is about reshaping U.S. global priorities. The coming years will determine whether his administration can pivot decisively towards Asia while managing the persistent complexities of the Middle East.