At the Manama Dialogue in Bahrain on October 31, 2025, U.S. National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard delivered a message that signaled a profound shift in American foreign policy for the Middle East and beyond. Addressing an audience of diplomats, security officials, and analysts at the annual security summit organized by the International Institute for Security Studies, Gabbard declared that the era of U.S.-driven regime change and nation building had ended under President Donald Trump’s leadership.
This announcement, which echoed earlier remarks by President Trump during his own Middle East trip, marked a clear departure from decades of American interventionism. Instead of prioritizing the promotion of democracy and human rights, the United States is now focusing on economic prosperity and regional stability, according to Gabbard. It’s a pivot that has already produced dramatic results—some positive, others still uncertain—in one of the world’s most volatile regions.
“For decades, our foreign policy has been trapped in a counterproductive and endless cycle of regime change or nation building,” Gabbard said, as reported by the Associated Press. A former Congresswoman from Hawaii and U.S. Army National Guard veteran, she did not mince words about the legacy of previous U.S. strategies. “It was a one-size-fits-all approach, of toppling regimes, trying to impose our system of governance on others, intervene in conflicts that were barely understood and walk away with more enemies than allies.”
Gabbard’s critique was unsparing. “The results: Trillions spent, countless lives lost and in many cases, the creation of greater security threats.” Her assessment mirrored President Trump’s own thinking about the costly wars that followed the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York and Washington—a period that saw U.S. troops deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq, with ambitions of remaking both societies.
Indeed, Trump’s first term saw the negotiation of a withdrawal deal from Afghanistan, which ultimately led to a chaotic and much-criticized departure under President Biden in 2021. The new approach, as Gabbard outlined, is less about exporting American ideals and more about brokering peace and stability—however fragile those arrangements may be.
Recent events in the Middle East underscore the complexity and risks of this recalibrated U.S. policy. Gabbard pointed to the ceasefire that halted the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip, a development that many in the region welcomed but few believe is truly secure. “The ceasefire in Gaza remained fragile,” she noted, highlighting ongoing tensions and the ever-present risk of renewed violence.
Another flashpoint has been Iran. The U.S. played a pivotal role in ending Israel’s 12-day war on Iran, including ordering American bombers to attack Iranian nuclear sites. Yet, the situation remains tense. Gabbard acknowledged that Iran continues to pose a significant challenge, citing recent reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency about renewed movement at the country’s nuclear facilities. The specter of nuclear proliferation in the region continues to haunt policymakers, despite the Trump administration’s more transactional, stability-focused approach.
One of the more surprising elements of Trump’s Middle East policy has been his administration’s embrace of Syria’s interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa—a figure with a controversial past. Al-Sharaa, a former al-Qaida fighter who was once held in an American prison in Iraq, now finds himself at the center of U.S. efforts to stabilize Syria. This pragmatic, some might say realpolitik, move underscores the administration’s willingness to make deals with former adversaries in pursuit of broader regional calm.
Gabbard, who attended the Manama Dialogue amid a grinding government shutdown back home, was candid about the uncertainties that lie ahead. “The road ahead will not be simple or easy but the president is very committed down this road,” she told the audience. Her remarks reflected both the hope and the anxiety that pervade American and regional thinking about the future. The shift in U.S. strategy is bold, but its durability and effectiveness remain to be seen.
Not all the news from Bahrain was about grand strategy and regional diplomacy. The summit itself became the focus of controversy when the Bahraini government revoked the visa of an Associated Press journalist who had been accredited to cover the event. The decision, announced on October 29, 2025, was said to be the result of a “post-approval review,” though officials offered no further explanation. The timing raised eyebrows, as it coincided with the AP’s publication of a story about long-detained activist Abdulhadi al-Khawaja beginning an open-ended hunger strike to protest his internationally criticized imprisonment. Al-Khawaja’s plight has drawn attention from human rights groups around the world, and the visa revocation was seen by some as an attempt to limit press scrutiny of Bahrain’s internal affairs.
Meanwhile, the hunger strike itself became a flashpoint for international concern. According to the Associated Press, al-Khawaja halted his hunger strike on October 31, 2025, but the episode served as a stark reminder of the difficult balance between regional stability and the ongoing struggle for human rights in the Gulf.
The Trump administration’s policy shift has provoked a range of reactions across the political spectrum, both at home and abroad. Supporters argue that focusing on economic prosperity and stability is a long-overdue correction to the excesses of past interventions. They point to the enormous costs—both financial and human—of wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere as evidence that regime change has failed to deliver security or democracy.
Critics, however, warn that sidelining human rights and democracy could embolden autocratic leaders and leave the U.S. with little leverage to address abuses or promote reform. The fragile state of the Gaza ceasefire and the unresolved tensions with Iran are seen by some as evidence that stability is elusive and that deeper problems remain unaddressed. The embrace of figures like Ahmad al-Sharaa, with his controversial history, has also raised questions about the moral costs of the new approach.
As the dust settles from the Manama Dialogue, one thing is clear: the United States is charting a new course in the Middle East. Whether this path will lead to lasting peace, prosperity, and security—or simply a new set of challenges—remains the central question facing American policymakers and their partners in the region.
For now, the world watches as the U.S. tests its new strategy, hoping that lessons learned from decades of intervention can guide a more pragmatic, if imperfect, approach to an ever-changing landscape.
