Trump’s Vision for the Middle East: A Provocative Plan with Far-Reaching Consequences
Donald Trump, the former President of the United States, has once again made headlines with his controversial and seemingly fantastical proposal to “take over” Gaza, remove its population of over 2 million Palestinians, and transform the region into a luxury Mediterranean resort, which he has dubbed “Gaz-a-Lago.” While this idea is widely regarded as impractical and politically unfeasible, Trump’s persistence in pushing this narrative may be a calculated move to shift the political landscape in the Middle East. By repeatedly floatingsuch an extreme suggestion, Trump is employing a classic tactic: normalizing the unthinkable. This approach has allowed him to pave the way for two more achievable goals that could significantly reshape the region, with profound implications for Palestinians, particularly those in the West Bank.
A Nuclear Deal with Iran: A Strategic Opportunity for Trump
One of Trump’s primary objectives appears to be securing a nuclear agreement with Iran, a country whose regional influence has been severely weakened in recent years. Trump has openly expressed his desire to strike a deal, even as he imposes new sanctions on the regime. During a recent press conference, he addressed Iran directly, saying, “I would love to be able to make a great deal, a deal where you can get on with your lives and you’ll do wonderfully.” While such a deal would likely face fierce opposition from the Israeli right and its conservative allies in America, Trump may be banking on the desperately weakened state of Iran’s bargaining position to secure favorable terms.
Iran’s regional proxies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iraqi and Syrian militias, and Hamas, have been significantly weakened by Israeli strikes. The fall of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, Tehran’s most powerful regional ally, has further exacerbated Iran’s isolation. With its ability to project power in the Middle East severely diminished, Iran is in a precarious position. A nuclear deal would not only provide the regime with a measure of protection but also offer much-needed economic relief. Despite Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s recent dismissal of negotiations, signals over the past 18 months suggest Tehran is open to talks.
For Trump, a nuclear deal presents an opportunity to prevent Iran from racing toward a nuclear weapon and to avoid drawing the U.S. into a conflict. It would also allow him to position himself as an international dealmaker, a role he has long coveted. A deal could extend the timeline for Iran’s nuclear program, potentially by decades, and include restrictions on Tehran’s support for regional proxies. While the outlines of such an agreement are clear, the main obstacle may be Iran’s refusal to decommission its missile arsenal. However, given the significant degradation of its missile capabilities in recent Israeli strikes, this issue may prove less insurmountable than it seems.
Expanding Israeli Control in the West Bank: A Tactical Trade-Off
Trump’s second goal appears to be expanding Israel’s formal control over the West Bank, a move that could serve as a consolation prize for the Israeli right in the event of a nuclear deal with Iran. During the same press conference in which he expressed interest in a deal with Tehran, Trump hinted at an announcement regarding Israel’s “sovereignty” over the West Bank. Such a move would build on the controversial “Peace to Prosperity” plan introduced during Trump’s first term, which proposed Israel’s annexation of up to 30% of the West Bank, including the strategic Jordan Valley.
While this plan was met with widespread ridicule when it was unveiled in 2020, it may now seem relatively restrained compared to the idea of Gaz-a-Lago. By framing such an extreme proposal, Trump has shifted the political discourse, making the annexation of parts of the West Bank appear more moderate by comparison. This tactic has allowed him to redefine the boundaries of acceptable policy in the region. For the Israeli right, which views the entire West Bank as its exclusive domain, the annexation of additional territory would be a significant victory. For Palestinians, however, it would mean the further erosion of their hopes for an independent state, leaving them confined to fragmented and isolated territories.
The Palestinian Dilemma: A Future of Diminished Hopes
The implications of Trump’s proposals for Palestinians are dire. Gaz-a-Lago, while an absurd fantasy, serves to further marginalize Palestinian claims to their homeland. By repeatedly advancing such an extreme idea, Trump reinforces the notion that Palestinian rights are somehow expendable. This narrative is deeply damaging, as it erodes international support for Palestinian self-determination and emboldens Israel to pursue its expansionist agenda with impunity.
For Palestinians in the West Bank, the expansion of Israeli sovereignty would mean living under even more suffocating conditions. The “Peace to Prosperity” plan envisions a future in which Palestinian territory is encircled by Israeli-controlled land, with the Jordan Valley serving as a strategic buffer. This would not only undermine the viability of a Palestinian state but also reinforce Israel’s vision of dominance “from the river to the sea,” as expressed by its governing coalition. While Palestinians are likely to resist such a plan vocally, the reality is that Israel has effectively controlled the West Bank since 1967, and little stands in the way of its outright annexation.
The Broader Regional Implications: Chaos and Instability
The potential consequences of Trump’s proposals extend far beyond the borders of Gaza and the West Bank. A nuclear deal with Iran, while necessary to prevent Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, could destabilize the region in other ways. The uneven distribution of power, coupled with the growing influence of Israel, could lead to a power vacuum that is exploited by other actors, both state and non-state. Meanwhile, the annexation of parts of the West Bank would almost certainly reignite tensions between Israelis and Palestinians, potentially sparking widespread unrest.
For the wider Middle East, the normalization of such extreme policies could set a dangerous precedent, emboldening other leaders to pursue their own expansionist agendas. The region, already a tinderbox of competing interests and historical grievances, could become even more combustible. While Trump’s fantasies may seem absurd on the surface, the practical steps he is taking to reshape the Middle East could have far-reaching and devastating consequences.
Conclusion: The Trump Legacy in the Middle East
In the end, Trump’s vision for the Middle East is a stark reminder of the power of political rhetoric to shape reality. While Gaz-a-Lago may never become a reality, its impact on the region is already being felt. By normalizing the unthinkable, Trump has created a political climate in which once-unimaginable policies are now being seriously considered. From a nuclear deal with Iran to the annexation of parts of the West Bank, the consequences of Trump’s actions will be felt for years to come. For Palestinians, the future looks increasingly bleak, as their hopes for a sovereign state are slowly extinguished. For the region as a whole, the legacy of Trump’s tenure may be one of chaos, instability, and the erosion of longstanding principles of justice and equality.
