Let there be no mistake, this is not a defense of Donald Trump. Like many Americans reared in the traditional tenets of American governance, I've been alternatingly horrified and stupefied by the flurry of ill-planned policy pronouncements dealing with both domestic and foreign policy. The mean-spirited nature of the Trump Administration to date, combined with the seemingly amateur approach to policymaking, is hardly reassuring. The Trump team has offered nary a fig leaf to those who opposed his campaign or are otherwise uncomfortable with his policy orientation. If the goal of "economic nationalism" and "America first" is to sow confusion and fear at home and abroad, then the plan is succeeding in spades. As applied to the Middle East, no one can say precisely what the Trump Administration intends to do with this region which has bedeviled his two immediate predecessors. But in fairness, no one can clearly define existing US policy. Indeed, there is no consistency in today's policy. The tools of military intervention and cooperation, foreign assistance, democracy and governance, humanitarian aid, energy policy and trade are all employed. But to what end? Is the goal to defeat terrorism? Does the mission include promotion of stability by supporting peace processes and supporting incumbent governments? Are democratic standards, human rights and gender equality priority issues? The policy in place today is unintelligible and ineffective. War and chaos prevail in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya. Sectarian tensions are high. There is no realistic hope for an Israeli-Palestinian peace process that leads to a two-state solution predicated on 1967 borders. Arab allies such as Egypt, Jordan and Tunisia all face daunting economic challenges and ongoing threats from terrorism. The GCC nations are scrambling to implement bold reform plans to meet their citizens' needs, while also trying to prevent further regional collapse. That Washington has thoroughly confused friend and foe alike is clear, but that confusion hardly started with Donald Trump. That Donald Trump may attempt to distance himself from stale policies is not especially revolutionary. Attempting to reconnect with key partners is wise, if done properly. So perhaps the change promised by the nascent Trump policy, which might or might not represent a break from the past, offers opportunity for regional players and the United States alike. Opportunity, of course, is not a promise for improvement – in fact, the new policy may do far more harm than good, or it might mirror existing policy with minor tweaks. Many respected Washington insiders believe the new American president will adopt a transactional relationship with the region. But a transactional approach does not represent a sharp break from the past. Perhaps with the exception of Israel, United States regional policy has always been transactional in nature. One needs to remember the ultimate purpose of foreign aid: it is about protecting interests. It is true that there are humanitarian considerations involved in channeling assistance to certain problems or specific nations. Security assistance, in the form of training and military hardware, is also distributed to governments because the US wants to strengthen those nations for the betterment of their people or promote regional stability. And economic aid, in its many forms, can improve the lives of people and health of governments. The purpose of foreign assistance will not change with Trump – even if he is more miserly is allocating aid. Even when buying good will, a nation is really buying influence – which can be converted to achieving other goals. One only needs to look at the most extravagant and successful exercise in American assistance: the Marshall Plan. The post-World War II plan was designed to rebuild Western Europe's war-torn economies. Yes, it provided much-needed humanitarian assistance to feed people, but it also worked to secure capitalism and democratic forms of government. The Marshall Plan saved Western Europe from communism and in so doing protected America's economic and security interests. The cold reality is that assistance is rarely based on shared values. In the Middle East, economic and military aid has always bought influence and security, and in so much as possible economic benefits. This explains why the US, without a guilty conscious, supported flawed "regimes" that later proved embarrassing. Because for every dollar spent on the Shah's Iran or Mubarak's Egypt, Washington rationalized it was protecting its own interests as defined at the time. Trump's recently announced immigration policy, discriminatory on its face, is clearly unwelcomed. But his motivation on immigration is based on domestic considerations rather than foreign policy – even if there is a connection. Excluding rhetoric, his regional approach is unlikely to mark a dramatic break from the past. This includes how aid and other benefits are allocated. Like his predecessors, Trump will support the leaders who will support American interests. And these interests will remain unchanged: counter-terrorism, energy, regional stability, trade and isolating Iran. Jimmy Carter, George W Bush, and Barack Obama, were the three presidents most revolutionary in their approach to foreign policy in the region. Carter was the first president to inject human rights as a pillar of foreign policy. Bush mixed military intervention with democracy-building as a long-term solution, however misguided, to defeat terrorism. Obama's nebulous policy never really had clear objectives, but gave every sign that the US was exhausted. All three presidents left office with the region in turmoil. Trump will likely make misguided decisions when it comes to the Middle East. But there is an opportunity for positive change as well – at least as it relates to state-to-state relations. Even his questioning of the two-state solution isn't necessarily terrible. Few can argue, after all, that the long, drawn out Oslo process has resulted in lasting peace. We will just have to wait and see, and hope that confusion leads to proactivity rather than paralysis. David Dumke is a veteran analyst on US-Arab relations. He teaches political science at the University of Central Florida. Follow him on Twitter @dtdumke
