Will Trump learn from past lessons in the Middle East?

Less than a week into his new presidency, US President Donald Trump revealed his stance towards the Palestinians by calling on Jordan and Egypt to take in Gazans to live in their countries, practically adopting the Israeli policy of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Israel has not concealed its intention to displace Gazans since the start of the genocidal war on Gaza more than a year ago. Both Egypt and Jordan explicitly and strongly rejected Israel’s ethnic cleansing plans then and reiterated the position now following Trump’s proposal. Egypt and Jordan viewed Trump’s proposal as not only a threat to their internal security and stability but also as a major threat to peace and security in the region.

Following his calls for the displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, Trump announced in a White House press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week that the United States would take permanent control of Gaza. Trump stressed that he intends to take over Gaza and develop it to be ready to welcome foreign investment from all around the world. Netanyahu immediately endorsed the proposal despite its unrealistic feasibility.

Trump also announced his decision to cut funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). Trump also said that he will, in the coming weeks, state his position regarding Israel’s annexation of the West Bank. Trump argued that the only obstacle preventing Gazans from leaving their homeland was the lack of an alternative destination and reiterated his calls for Jordan and Egypt to take them in. Despite being aware of the firm Arab rejection of his plan — expressed through a six- Arab counties statement forming a unified position against his initiative — Trump has escalated pressure on both Egypt and Jordan by threatening to cut the US aid if they continue rejecting his proposal.

READ: Palestinian refugees in Jordan fear ‘new Nakba’ with Trump’s displacement plan

The opposition to Trump’s proposal is not limited to Arab states. A significant political rejection of his plan within the United States also emerged, led by a good number of Republican and Jewish lawmakers, as well as Democratic members who viewed it as unrealistic and doomed to failure. Major Western countries, including key allies such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom, have also rejected the proposal. Trump’s call for the displacement of Gazans echoes his earlier initiative, the “Deal of the Century”, which he touted during his previous term, which was centered on annexing Palestinian land in the West Bank to Israel. Similar to his past deal, Trump’s new proposal is also likely to fail, as he ignores many important factors in the region as well as history and justice.

Trump’s new proposal about the displacement of Gazans should prompt a reassessment of failing US foreign policy in the Middle East to reveal a profound misunderstanding of the dynamics of the region. His reliance on coercion as a foreign policy tool, evident in his threats against several countries, has been a key factor in past American failures. In addition to that, Trump’s approach to the Palestinian issue – both in his previous and current terms – represents a clear departure from the long-standing US policy of supporting a two-state solution, even though previous administrations refrained from enforcing that solution on Israel, despite having the leverage to do so.

While previous US administrations carefully balanced support for Israel with maintaining alliances in the Arab world, Trump’s approach has been markedly different. This is evident in his decisions to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, shut down the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s office in Washington, and explicitly endorse Israel’s policies of annexation and displacement – actions that American past administrations pursued more cautiously to safeguard regional alliances.

Trump’s new presidential term is shaped by three key factors defining his stance on the Palestinian issue. First, he relies on America’s stature as a global superpower to impose his vision by resorting to coercion if necessary, as reflected in his remarks on Canada, Panama and Greenland.

Second, he maintains unwavering support for Israel, lifting sanctions on settlers and resuming the supply of heavy bombs.

Third, he seeks to achieve a historical legacy unparalleled by previous American presidents with regard to resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. His pressure on Egypt and Jordan to accept displaced Gazans aligns with his decision to suspend US aid to numerous recipient countries for 90 days. While this decision exempted Israel and Egypt, it directly impacted Jordan, which has received over $200 billion in US aid since 1951 and is currently facing severe economic challenges.

Egypt, which is also facing a complex economic reality, may soon come under similar pressure. Both Egypt and Jordan are crucial allies to the United States, receiving significant military and security assistance. While Jordan hosts US military bases, both have long-standing peace treaties with Israel and play a vital role in regional stability.

READ: Trump’s hyperbolic rhetoric is not out of the box thinking, it’s out of touch with reality

The Palestinian cause remains central in Middle Eastern politics, representing an unresolved historical injustice that has united all Arab nations and even their governments despite their differing policies. This reality has historically dictated the cautious diplomatic language adopted by previous US administrations, which favoured delaying any final resolution while maintaining unwavering support for Israel. The Trump administration’s uncalculated policies toward key regional allies, such as Egypt and Jordan, risk further destabilisation, a concern reflected in their strong official responses to Trump’s displacement proposal.

The US has a long history of misusing force and misunderstanding the region, often yielding disastrous outcomes for both itself and the people and countries in the Middle East. The post-Gulf War policies of 1991, which sought to impose a new order on the region while excluding Iran from the Madrid Conference, demonstrated a fundamental misreading of regional dynamics. Similarly, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan following September 11 led to millions of casualties and widespread devastation but failed to secure US objectives. The Taliban remained resilient despite two decades of American occupation in Afghanistan. Also in Iraq, despite the elimination of Saddam Hussein‘s regime, no stability was achieved as the United States had hoped. On the contrary, Iraq became an entry point for other regional players, which was not in favour of the American presence there.

Caught between its need to maintain a military presence in the Middle East and its strategic shift toward Asia to counter China, the US has struggled with policy inconsistencies across successive administrations. President Barack Obama’s administration brokered a nuclear deal with Iran, which Trump later cancelled in favour of a “maximum pressure” strategy, only to now consider renegotiating an agreement. US policy toward Iran has been neither successful nor strategically coherent. Meanwhile, in another contradiction, the US has sought to bolster regional allies’ military capabilities to counter Iran, while simultaneously pushing for normalisation between Israel and Arab states, a process fundamentally tied to resolving the Palestinian issue. However, Washington’s reluctance to address the core Palestinian question to appease Israel further complicates the region’s geopolitical landscape. The dynamics in the region are becoming increasingly complex with the emergence of global powers competing with the United States for influence, adopting more peaceful approaches focused on cooperation and neutrality.

Despite periodic attempts to shift its focus away from the Middle East, the region remains crucial to US interests. The Gulf states are vital to America, not only as key energy suppliers to its European allies, but also because their oil exports, which account for 60 per cent of global trade, have been tied to the US dollar since the 1970s. Any instability in the Gulf would inevitably impact the United States.

Saudi Arabia, in alignment with a unified Arab stance, has reaffirmed that a just resolution of the Palestinian issue is non-negotiable, particularly amid the ongoing tension and conflict in the occupied Palestinian territories. The Palestinian response to displacement proposals has been loud and clear, as demonstrated by the massive return marches toward northern Gaza, underscoring their unwavering rejection. In today’s world – where nations claim to uphold justice, international law and accountability – Trump’s call for Palestinian displacement is unlikely to find open endorsement. It is equally improbable that the international community would accept a repeat of the forced displacements of 1947–1948 and 1967. Ultimately, the fate of the Palestinian people remains in their own hands. Their resilience and return to northern Gaza, their perseverance and defiance in the West Bank, all reflect a collective determination to stay.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.