Donald Trump’s intention to recognize the Persian Gulf as the “Arabian Gulf”, a “gift” to Saudi Arabia to incentivize normalization of ties with Israel, is counterproductive. Much of the Arab world today refers to the body of water as the “Arabian Gulf”, but this is relatively new, emerging as a result of nationalist revisionism in the 1960s. It has otherwise been referred to near-unanimously as the Persian Gulf for as far back as 559 BC. But willful ignorance of history is not the main problem in Trump’s plan – it’s the incongruence with Trump’s regional policy goals.
Trump seems not to recognize the fundamental ways the Middle East has changed in the past four years. In his view, the genocide in Gaza is an annoying distraction, the fall of Assad just one more development in an overly-complex conflict, and foreign policy shifts in Saudi Arabia and Turkey unimportant. Trump has two primary goals in the region: to complete the Abraham Accords, normalizing Israel’s relations with its neighbours, and out-do Obama’s deal with Iran.
However, the genocide in Gaza has rendered the first goal highly unrealistic. Without addressing the Palestine issue, the Abraham Accords cannot succeed. But beyond the Accords, Saudi Arabia has also reduced its dependence on the US and become more of an independent actor in the region. Trump’s “gift” will amuse the Saudis, who will happily embrace the US decision while refusing to budge on Israeli normalization. Meanwhile, it has aggravated Iran, providing a unique unifying grievance for Iranians and the regime while needlessly imperiling his sought-after-deal. Ultimately, Trump’s plan demonstrates a deep lack of understanding of Riyadh’s recent foreign policy evolution and of both Riyadh’s and Tehran’s internal dynamics. If what he wants is regional normalization of ties with Israel and a grand deal with Iran, his own ignorance of the region’s historical and political forces may be his biggest obstacle to achieving them.
Sydney Wilhelmy is a first-year MIA Student at the Hertie School in the International Security Track, originally from the United States.
This brief article is part of our new ‘Monday Takes’ series. Do you want to submit a take as well, for example for next Monday? Check out the submission form (opening each Tuesday).