The re-election of President Donald Trump in 2024 presented a renewed understanding of international relations. Democratization of world politics in the context of international relations We have talked about transnationalism, but how exactly is it related to democratization of world politics within the scope of international relations?
His 2025 Middle East trip that included high profile visits to Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Qatar involved coercing massive economic and defense pledges. On the positive end of the spectrum was a $142 billion arms deal with Riyadh and a trillion-dollar Emirati investment through 2030. Such interactions speak of the approach to foreign policy that Trump has in place: economic offers followed by diplomacy.
The fact that Trump prefers bilateral agreements is a clear departure with respect to consensual diplomacy. In his second-term approach to foreign policy, security and economic interests strongly take precedence over multilateral institutions and democratic reform. Such a strategy might translate into a fast payoff but its ability to solve protracted conflicts in the Middle East is becoming controversial.
Geopolitical realignments and their complexities
Washington’s renewed efforts to revive Arab-Israeli normalization have accelerated under Trump’s transactional framework. Doing the same thing again with the Abraham Accords model, the administration promoted the enhanced defense and economic integration of Israel and Gulf states. Talks to normalize Saudi Arabia also reappeared in early 2025 but remain unresolved cessation of tension that surrounded Gaza and Jerusalem.
Trump was also trying backstage talks with Iran to come up with a new nuclear agreement. Although not as comprehensive as the JCPOA, this initiative dwelt on tradeoffs that entailed lifting up sanctions in the event of limited enrichment of uranium. These overtures applied despite the fact that their approaches are transactional and proliferation is regarded as a unit of trade.
Controversial economic visions and regional dissent
One of the more controversial of its plans is the so-called Riviera of the Middle East in idea zones along the Gaza coast that would open the territory to international tourism and investment. Critic commentators condemn this project as being dangerously peripheral to Palestinian claims of political self-determination by opting to redesign the economics of the region rather than focus on the politics of self-determination. Its seen top-down approach has been received critically by Palestinian groups and humanitarian groups alike, which believe that it is an external effort to reorder the future of Gaza without taking into account occupation and sovereignty.
The act of packaging peace as an investment bundle as opposed to a process built on rights has entrenched local opposition and fueled anxieties that transactional diplomacy risks creating volatile conditions as its focus overwhelmingly is on historical wrongs.
Impact on conflict resolution and peace prospects
In spite of much-publicized announcements of ceasefires, Gaza is trapped into cycles of violence. Violent confrontations between Hamas and Israeli troops continued intermittently in early 2025, and neither was able to realize lasting security. The United States has been unable to enhance political discussion through economic pledges though it has promoted temporary de-escalations.
Transactional diplomacy is not interested in reconciliation but in stabilization In this regard the infra structural projects, sales of arms as well as incentives have been used instead of the well used tools of diplomacy, mediation and frameworks of mutual recognition. Such investments have brought superficial peace at the expense of deep-rooted factors of conflict, displacement, military occupation and contested statehood.
Broader implications for peacebuilding efforts
This model faces challenges in other conflict zones as well. In Syria, US officials offered energy infrastructure support to regions controlled by US-allied Kurdish forces without proposing a long-term settlement for the fractured state. In Lebanon, American officials proposed increased reconstruction funding in exchange for security guarantees from Hezbollah-dominated areas—a deal that failed to garner internal consensus. These examples highlight the limits of treating peace as a commodity subject to deal-making rather than as a process requiring inclusive dialogue.
Domestic and international critiques
Trump’s 2025 federal budget prioritized immigration enforcement and defense, slashing allocations to the State Department and USAID by nearly 40%. Traditional diplomatic institutions, critical to conflict mediation and postwar recovery, face diminished resources and influence. As a result, transactional policy has become the dominant method of engagement across US missions in the Middle East.
International partners, particularly in Europe, express concern about Washington’s move away from multilateralism. France and Germany have publicly reiterated the need for inclusive negotiation mechanisms in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, warning that bilateral deals with authoritarian regimes risk cementing exclusionary power structures. The absence of civil society in Trump’s Middle East agenda further compounds these apprehensions.
Political commentary on shifting US priorities
Political analyst Clandestine commented on social media that
“Trump’s approach reshapes the Middle East through the lens of transactionalism and economic pragmatism rather than multiparty reconciliation, offering short-term wins but scant hope for sustained peace.”
This observation reflects a growing consensus that while transactional diplomacy can produce high-visibility results, it rarely addresses the structural and identity-based components of regional conflicts.
Recalibrating the balance of power
The Trump administration’s model of re-engagement has altered how regional actors perceive US influence. The emirates with the aid of weapon procurements and security guarantees are gaining prominence in the politics of the region. Israel has further strengthened its relationship with the major Arab capitals coupled with the preservation of its military superiority. Iran, in its turn, has reacted by increasing indirect activity through proxies made up of militias, challenging US-led coalitions without directly taking on the US.
It is this power equilibrium which is dominated by the lack of a broad based peace strategy that has resulted in a vacuum. Although transactional diplomacy can provide temporary relief of the conflict by relying on deterrence and economic leverage, its long-term efficiency at solving the problem is still dubious due to deep political and social frictions in the region.
Long-term implications and strategic ambiguity
The ingestion of transactionalism has added a degree of indecisiveness to the US foreign policy. Agreements can be negotiated and reneged in a short time, based on political decisions, but not on mutual dedication. This creates a lack of trust between the regional partners who will have their doubts concerning the sustainability of American promises. It also makes planning succession to future regimes in the US difficult since they might inherit a conglomeration of arrangements that are shallow in terms of institutions.
The enduring dilemma of power and diplomacy
The Trump administration’s second-term Middle East strategy reveals an enduring paradox in international affairs: the pursuit of influence through immediate gains versus the cultivation of long-term stability. Transactional diplomacy offers tangible results contracts signed, weapons sold, investments pledged but its ability to transform conflict ridden landscapes remains constrained by the very logic of short-termism.
As Trump’s presidency advances, US policy is being watched closely for signs of adaptation. Whether his administration evolves toward more comprehensive conflict resolution models or continues to prioritize transactional methods will shape not only the region’s future but also the legacy of American diplomacy in one of the world’s most volatile arenas.
This unfolding strategy raises critical questions about the nature of global leadership in an era of shifting alliances, diminished multilateral institutions, and growing demands for justice and self-determination from populations long caught in the crossfire of power politics.
