In the developing chapter of American and global geopolitics, Donald J. Trump’s second presidency already signals a reorganization of regional balances, security systems, and global power dynamics. What we are seeing is not just a continuation of old policies, but the early stages of a new world order driven by assertive diplomacy, strategic alliances, and a reaffirmation of U.S. strength in a multipolar era.
This article explores the new dynamics of the 47th U.S. presidency, focusing on Trump’s approach to Middle Eastern conflicts, his security commitments to Gulf states, the changing role of Pakistan, and the challenges from Russia and China.
Stopping the Unstoppable War — Iran, Hamas, and Proxy Escalations
From the start, the Trump administration has aimed to reevaluate the U.S. role in the Middle East — moving away from being a constant combatant and towards acting as an arbiter and power broker. One of its early foreign security wins was temporarily de-escalating a potential war in Gaza and Lebanon by confronting the Iranian “axis of resistance.”
Indeed, a significant turning point occurred with the October 8, 2023, Wall Street Journal report that Iranian security officials helped plan the Hamas attack on Israel. The report, citing senior Hamas and Hezbollah sources, claimed that Tehran had effectively “given the green light” to the October 7 operation.¹ Subsequent U.S. intelligence assessments were somewhat cautious, indicating that Tehran probably knew about the operations but may not have known the exact timing or scale.² ³
Regardless of the exact degree of Iranian direction, the Trump administration seized upon the narrative to reframe the conflict as one of Iranian aggression rather than bilateral enmity. Through diplomatic pressure, threats, and mediation, the U.S. pushed hard to forestall a whole regional conflagration.
One of the most striking outcomes has been Hamas’s October 28, 2023, admission that the broader orchestration of violence was partly directed by Iran through proxies in Lebanon and Yemen. This revelation provided a strategic and propaganda opportunity for the U.S. and its Gulf partners.? Whether entirely sincere or driven by shifting battlefield pressures, the admission has enabled the Trump team to argue that the U.S. strategy was validated: containing Iran’s hybrid war without resorting to direct large-scale military intervention.
By dismantling the latent threat Iran posed through its proxy networks — Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas — Trump has declared a diplomatic and security win that many analysts believe has been long overdue.
The Qatar Pivot:
Transitioning from Host Nation to Strategic Ally
One of the most audacious moves of the Trump administration has been the transformation of Qatar — historically seen as an awkward bridge between the U.S. and Islamist movements — into a frontline security partner. This marks a fundamental shift in U.S.–Arab relationships, embedding a Gulf monarchy in America’s defense paradigm in ways never seen before.
Security Guarantees and Military Investment
In a remarkable statement, Trump announced that any attack on Qatar would be regarded as an attack on the United States — a security guarantee usually reserved for NATO allies.? That pledge raised Qatar from being a host to a quasi-protectorate status.
At the same time, the U.S. and Qatar have agreed to strengthen military ties. Qatar will build a facility at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho, where Qatari F-15QA jets and pilots will train alongside U.S. forces for at least ten years.? ? ? This aircraft-hosting training agreement is a first in U.S.–Arab relations.
Official statements highlight that while Qatar will fund the facility, the host base remains under U.S. control and is not considered a foreign base per se.? ¹? Critics argue it blurs sovereignty and control lines, but the administration describes it as a strategic move for interoperability, deterrence, and hemispheric influence.
The choice of Idaho is symbolic: the Mountain Home base already hosts Singaporean fighter training, demonstrating that the U.S. has long permitted allied military presence for training.¹¹ The Qatar facility continues that tradition — though the political optics in this case make it much more sensitive.
CENTCOM, Al Udeid, and the Forward Base Paradigm
Qatar’s Al Udeid Air Base is central to America’s Middle East strategy — hosting U.S. Central Command’s forward headquarters and historically accommodating over 11,000 U.S. and coalition personnel. Its strategic importance is matched by its vulnerability.
In June 2025, Iran launched a retaliatory missile strike on Al Udeid amid U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. Qatar claimed to have intercepted the missiles and reported no casualties.¹³ ¹? The event highlighted the hidden risks of forward basing and supported Trump’s view that Gulf partners required closer integration and guarantees.
By turning Qatar into a strategic partner and, in effect, a shielded client, the Trump administration is reshaping the U.S. stance in the Gulf — less as an outsider occupying land, more as a co-guarantor.
The Saudi–Qatar–U.S. Entente and the Rewriting of the Gulf Order
No transformation of Gulf politics is complete without Saudi Arabia. Under Trump’s leadership, Riyadh, Doha, and Washington are building a pragmatic three-way alliance. Saudi Arabia has reopened its relations with Qatar (after years of blockade), and Trump’s support for Qatar indirectly secures Saudi interests by reducing Iran’s influence through smaller Gulf states.
Furthermore, Doha is emerging as a logistical and financial center for U.S. regional strategy, while Riyadh continues to act as a strong counterbalance to Tehran. The U.S. functions both as a stabilizer and a supporter — uniting Gulf powers within a shared security framework instead of dividing them.
This is part of a larger shift: Gulf states are no longer asking “Will America protect us?” but instead negotiating shared sovereignty, joint deterrence, and interconnected defense.
Pakistan: A Missed Strategic Opportunity
Trump’s approach to Pakistan serves as a warning that alignment without discipline produces limited strategic benefits.
Pakistani military leaders have long collaborated closely with U.S. and British intelligence, including the ISI–CIA links. Trump broke protocol by inviting Pakistan’s Field Marshal to the Oval Office, bypassing civilian channels, which underscored the significance of the military-to-military relationship.
However, when the Hamas–Israel ceasefire framework surfaced, Pakistan’s civilian leadership hesitated. A 20-point “agreement” allegedly brokered by Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister was denied by the same government, undermining credibility. Trump, in his gratitude, acknowledged Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey — but left Pakistan out completely, signaling that unpredictable policies make you irrelevant.
The shift in Pakistan’s civilian leadership — characterized by inconsistent statements and wavering positions — made it clear to Trump that Pakistan depends more on U.S. economic and security support than the other way around.
Domestically, Pakistan faces governance crises: friction between civilians and the establishment, unrest in Punjab and Baluchistan, extremist threats in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and turmoil over TLP-led protests in Punjab. The failure of civilian leadership to handle internal security or articulate a coherent foreign policy has weakened Pakistan’s position in the new world order.
In Trump’s calculus, strategic alignment must be consistent, reliable, and decisive — qualities Pakistan’s civilian class has not demonstrated.
Russia, Ukraine, and the Great Power Challenge
As the U.S. pulls back from ongoing Middle East conflicts, the biggest challenge facing the new Trump presidency is Russia and its war on Ukraine. Russia’s relentless drone and missile attacks mark a shift from the more static front-line fighting of earlier conflicts.
Trump’s ability to adjust U.S. posture toward Moscow will test the limits of American military dominance. In principle, the U.S. still holds formidable conventional and technological superiority; a decisive strike against Russia would, in the world’s view, reaffirm U.S. leadership. However, implementing this approach involves significant risks of escalation, nuclear brinkmanship, and European complications.
Trump’s tariffs — 100% on China, 50% on India — act as blunt tools to punish geopolitical differences and economic cooperation with rivals. The message is clear: you either align or face the consequences. Regional powers must understand that the U.S. still holds unmatched power for coercion, sanctions, and strategic force projection.
Toward a New Order: Strategic Principles and Risks
1. Power Through Partnerships:
Trump’s strategy emphasizes interdependence instead of dominance — Gulf states, even rivals, are being woven into a U.S.-led security web.
2. Asymmetric leverage over symmetry:
Rather than occupying territories, Trump seeks to co-opt regional actors, making them stakeholders in the U.S. order.
3. Conditional integrity:
Partnerships must be consistent. Pakistan’s strategic irrelevance arises from its inconsistency.
4. Flexible force posture:
Forward basing is redefined as strategic interoperability, not occupation. The Qatar facility in Idaho serves as an example.
5. Escalation control rather than escalation avoidance:
In Ukraine or the Gulf, Trump will depend on calibrated deterrence, not disorderly disengagement.
But this grand reordering carries risks:
* Regional backlash over the apparent loss of sovereignty.
* Domestic political backlash from critics who see the Qatar facility as a foreign intrusion.
* There are missteps in escalating conflicts with Russia or Iran that get out of control.
* Alienation of traditional U.S. partners who feel sidelined by transactional alignments.
Conclusion
President Trump’s second term is not just a repeat; it aims to be historic. By reshaping U.S. involvement in the Middle East, integrating Gulf states into American defense plans, and demanding strategic discipline from allies like Pakistan, he is building the framework of a new world order.
Whether that order holds — amid the turbulence of Russia’s war, China’s ambitions, and internal U.S. political pressures — remains to be seen. But the stakes are high: this could mark the moment the United States transitions from a global sheriff to a worldwide architect.
About the Author
Dr. Gholam Mujtaba is a political scientist and strategic analyst who specializes in global security, U.S. foreign policy, and Islamic world geopolitics. With advanced degrees in international relations and decades of research and field experience, he has contributed to policy journals, taught at leading universities, and advised institutions on emerging power dynamics.
References
1. Summer Said, Benoit Faucon, Stephen Kalin, “Iran Helped Plot Attack on Israel Over Several Weeks,” Wall Street Journal, October 8, 2023.
2. U.S. intelligence assessments, as reported by WSJ and Congress Research Service, indicate Tehran likely knew of plans but not timing. ³
3. Congressional Research Service, Israel and Hamas October 2023 Conflict: Frequently Asked Questions, R47754.
4. Hamas’ confession on October 28, 2023, linking Iran to orchestration, as widely reported after the WSJ disclosure.
5. Trump’s executive order guaranteeing Qatar’s security was reported in U.S. press coverage of the Qatar agreement.
6. “Qatar to build fighter jet facility at U.S. base in Idaho,” Financial Times, October 10, 2025.
7. “Pentagon chief Hegseth announces Qatari Air Force facility at Idaho base,” Al Jazeera, October 10, 2025.
8. “Pentagon will build a training facility for Qatari pilots in Idaho,” Associated Press, October 10, 2025.
9. “Hegseth announces Qatar will build air force facility at U.S. base in Idaho,” CBS News, October 10, 2025.
10. “Things to know about the Qatar training facility planned for an Idaho Air Force base,” AP News.
11. Mountain Home Air Force Base hosts a Singaporean joint squadron, according to the Wikipedia entry.
12. Al Udeid Air Base hosting of U.S./coalition forces; Wikipedia entry.
13. 2025 Iranian strikes on Al Udeid Air Base; Wikipedia entry.
14. Reuters, Le Monde, and regional press coverage of the June 2025 missile attack on a U.S. base in Qatar.
