In a region where alliances shift as quickly as the desert winds, the United States is once again recalibrating its approach to the Middle East. Recent weeks have seen a flurry of diplomatic activity and strategic pronouncements from President Donald Trump’s administration, signaling both a continuation and a transformation of American priorities. At the heart of these developments are two intertwined stories: the evolving peace dynamics in Gaza and a sudden, pointed return of Iraq to the U.S. strategic map.
The Gaza peace agreement, finalized in mid-October 2025, encapsulates the intricate balancing act the U.S. faces in the region. According to Shafaq News and other sources, Arab states were nudged toward a compromise with Israel, but the deal’s text reflected significant concessions. The language on establishing a Palestinian state was notably diluted, and rather than a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, only a partial pullback was agreed upon. This left many observers questioning the durability and fairness of the arrangement.
Adding fuel to an already volatile situation, Israel’s missile strike in Qatar ratcheted up tensions. The incident not only destabilized the regional atmosphere, but also placed President Trump under intense pressure to reassure Arab allies of America’s commitment. In a noteworthy diplomatic move, the administration extended a formal security guarantee to Qatar in September 2025 — a significant shift designed to address Arab concerns about the reliability of U.S. security commitments.
But as one door opens, another is being pushed ajar. Saudi Arabia, a heavyweight in regional politics, is now advocating for a similar security arrangement with the United States. Yet, as outlined by Shafaq News and echoed by U.S. policy analysts, expanding American security guarantees may not serve U.S. national interests and could further complicate an already tangled web. Instead, the Trump administration faces calls to focus on the root causes of instability, particularly by urging Israel to temper its aggressive posture and encouraging Arab nations to shoulder more of their own security burdens.
This is not the first time Washington has found itself at such a crossroads. The Abraham Accords, brokered under Trump’s earlier term, saw the U.S. offering arms sales, territorial recognitions, and financial incentives to foster normalization between Israel and several Arab states. While these moves generated headlines and short-term cooperation, they also risked overextending America’s commitments. The U.S. currently hosts over 50,000 military personnel in the Middle East, a number that has grown since the October 7, 2025 Hamas attack on Israel. Yet, as the U.S. becomes a net exporter of oil and major terrorist organizations wane, the rationale for such a robust military presence is increasingly questioned.
Former President Joe Biden, too, flirted with the idea of a NATO-like security guarantee for Saudi Arabia after a 2019 strike on Saudi oil installations exposed vulnerabilities. But when push came to shove, the U.S. refrained from direct military action after Houthi attacks, forcing Riyadh to take greater responsibility for its own defense and ultimately scale back its costly intervention in Yemen. This experience suggests that a lighter American footprint, coupled with strategic pressure, can sometimes yield more sustainable stability.
Against this backdrop, a single offhand remark by President Trump at a Gaza summit in Sharm El-Sheikh jolted Iraq back onto Washington’s radar. “Iraq is a country full of oil… but it doesn’t know what to do with it. That’s your problem,” Trump said, according to Shafaq News. The comment, brief but loaded, was followed within days by a formal National Day greeting to Baghdad and the appointment of Iraqi-American businessman Mark Savaya as Special Envoy to Iraq. Observers saw this sequence not as coincidence, but as a deliberate signal of renewed U.S. attention — this time, with an emphasis on economic leverage and governance reform rather than military oversight.
Frank Mesmar, a Republican Party member and advisor at the University of Maryland, told Shafaq News that Trump’s comments “serve as a reminder that effective utilization of resources is crucial for avoiding significant problems.” Mesmar saw an opportunity for the U.S. and Iraq to “work together towards a more sustainable and equitable future,” especially as the Trump administration’s pressure on Iraq’s oil and energy sectors could encourage economic diversification and regional cooperation.
Not everyone is convinced, however. Dr. Paul Sullivan, an energy security specialist at Johns Hopkins University, noted, “It is sometimes hard to figure out what he means by many things. However, I can see how this could spark conversations and concern.” Sullivan speculated that Trump’s focus might be on Iraqi oil exports replacing Russian supplies in some markets, but also highlighted the perennial issue of Iran’s influence. “That energy, if it is used to support enemies of the US, could bring problems to Iraq,” he warned, pointing to the complications of U.S. snap-back sanctions and Iraq’s energy ties with Iran.
Inside Baghdad, the appointment of Mark Savaya, an envoy with deep Mosul roots but little traditional diplomatic experience, was met with cautious optimism. His mandate centers on oil-sector reform, financial oversight, and monitoring Iran-aligned factions — a model that echoes Trump-era appointments elsewhere in the region. According to Iraqi officials, Savaya’s role is to “watch from within,” signaling a new U.S. operational model: minimal military presence, no ambassador, but active economic and governance influence from behind the scenes.
Joshua Harris, the U.S. Chargé d’Affaires in Iraq, told Shafaq News that “Iraq still holds a central place in US policy,” rejecting the idea of American disengagement. “This is not a retreat — it’s a redefinition of interests. The US, under President Trump, is putting American interests first, and that’s a principle being applied globally.” Harris emphasized the U.S. desire for a “sovereign, secure, and prosperous Iraq, contributing to regional stability and benefiting from economic integration.”
This evolving approach marks a strategic pivot from security to sovereignty. No longer is the primary U.S. question how Iraq combats terrorism; now, it’s about how Iraq manages its oil wealth and, by extension, its own sovereignty. The implications are profound in a country where resource control intersects with sectarian loyalties, corruption, and foreign influence. The U.S. appears to be leveraging Iran’s recent regional setbacks to nudge Iraq toward an American-aligned economic model — one that boosts bilateral trade, curbs factional funding, and stabilizes energy governance.
Looking at the bigger picture, the Trump administration’s recalibration in the Middle East is less about boots on the ground and more about influence through oil contracts, financial reforms, and strategic diplomacy. The Gaza agreement, with its diluted promises and partial withdrawals, is emblematic of a broader trend: the United States is seeking to stabilize the region by stepping back, not plunging deeper. This shift, while pragmatic, leaves regional actors with a greater share of responsibility — and a sharper sense of accountability.
As Iraq finds itself once again at the center of U.S. attention, the challenge for Baghdad is to navigate between partnership and accountability, opportunity and scrutiny. The message from Washington is clear: the era of open-ended security guarantees is giving way to a new chapter defined by economic leverage, strategic restraint, and a demand for local ownership of security and prosperity.