This is my reading of the US National Security Strategy (NSS) of November 2025:
ENERGY OUTLOOK
FORUM 2026
BRIEFING PACK
For Feature Interview with
Fuad Siniora
Former Prime Minister of Lebanon
What does Trump's new National Security
Strategy mean for the Middle East and how it is
likely to be received by regional actors?
Recorded on Wednesday 07/01/2026
ENERGY OUTLOOK FORUM 2026
This is my reading of the US National Security Strategy (NSS) of November 2025:
It seems to me that it represent a major shift from the previous Era of the Great Power Confrontation moving towards a new Era of Nation States with areas of influence. It indicates a new understanding that American Imperial outreach is not any more sustainable nor in the national interest of the United States. There is also an abandonment of the liberal world order (previously championed by Barak Obama and Joe Biden), with a US predisposition for non-intervention, meaning no imposition on others of democracy or social change.
As well as an inclination towards anti-globalization, anti-free trade, and anti-multilateralism, and refusal to subjugate the national interest of the United States to International Laws and world Order and to International Organizations.
I think what happened a few days ago in Venezuela is one of the manifestations of this new policy of the US.
What is also new is the emphasis of the US on cultural issues and cultural affinity, and the importance of culture as a factor in foreign policy of the US.
There is also an admission by the new US Security Directive that China is a world power, with the United States seeing the rivalry against China primarily as economic. On the other hand, Russia is no longer seen by the US as an enemy. Hence, the US takes a neutral position regarding the war in Ukraine which is unlike the previous position taken before by the US and by Europe towards Ukraine and Russia.
The US wants the Americas (the western Hemisphere) in particular to be free of hostile elements. The NSS references the Trump corollary to the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. The Monroe Doctrine states that the US would not accept colonial powers or foreign interventions in the Americas, and the Trump corollary adds that the US will not accept any adversarial influence in the Americas.
The US also seeks to prevent adversarial influence in the Middle East, which marks it as another American sphere of influence.
The core objectives of the US NSS are:
1- Emphasis on the Americas and the Monroe Doctrine.
2- To prevent adversarial powers dominating the Middle East referring to Iran in particular.
3- Energy dominance by the US, which partly explains the recent major action taken by the US in Venezuela.
As for Africa, the National Security Strategy clearly states that the Unites States should transition from an aid-focused relationship with Africa to a trade and investment focused relationship, favoring partnerships with capable, reliable states committed to opening their markets to US goods and services.
The Middle East section in the NSS document is brief, and it states that the US will be less involved in it because the main reasons for intervention are no longer there mainly because:
- The US is energy-independent, and effectively the US is already a net exporter of Energy.
- The Super Power competition (with Russia) is no longer an issue.
- And the possibility of the spillage of conflict outside the ME is remote.
It also indicates that the weakening Iran has made the region more stable, implying that instability in the ME is caused by Iran, and not by the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
This is in spite of the fact that this conflict remains unresolved.
What can, in my opinion, be concluded out of the NSS document regarding the ME Region that.
1- Iran is reassured that a regime change is not a priority, but Iran should be worried that it can no longer rely on Chinese or Russian support in an American dominated Middle East region. In this respect and for the time being Iran will be economically and politically isolated.
2- As for Jordan: It will remain relevant due to historical ties with the US and due to the active lobbying by King Abdallah.
3- US Egyptian relations will remain strong and Egypt is reassured by the Trump administration confronting the Moslem brotherhood, a welcome change from the Obama era. But this relationship will be overshadowed by the strong commercial and financial interests with the GCC (Gulf Countries).
4- Syria is the main focus of the new US policy and will continue to be so, for the duration of the Trump presidency.
According to the NSS document the key to successful relations with the Middle East “is accepting the region, its leaders, and its nations as they are while working together on areas of common interest”.
5- The Trump administration treats the Palestinian problem as a humanitarian question and not as a political issue to be resolved. This is unlike the position taken by the previous US Administrations. It is worth noting in this respect that Presidents Clinton and Biden were active in looking for a permanent, sustainable, and fair solution to the Palestine problem based on a two State Solution.
However and in my opinion, and because Trump is less dogmatic than Biden, and more like a Deal Maker, Trump may become open to be ready to take some positive steps regarding the Palestinian Problem if that becomes necessary for him to win the noble prize for peace.
In view of the above and in view of the difficult experiences suffered by the Countries, and the people of the Middle East region during the Past several decades, I tend to think that there are two-main conclusions that warrant consideration.
First, there is no more possibility any more for the continuation of non-state militarized organizations in the Arab World. Consequently, with the weakening of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the other militarized non-State organizations, the possibility of a large-scale military action becomes not only remote but futile in every respect.
Second, the Arab Israeli conflict, and the Palestinian Israeli conflict can no longer continue to take the shape and the form of a militarized conflict because:
1-This militarized conflict did not lead, throughout the past decades, to any significant results particularly in view of the US unlimited support to Israel, a fact that was proven time and again during the wars of 1973 and 2023.
All the past wars against Israel led to the loss of more Palestinian and Arab lands, and resulted in more killing, the loss of innocent lives, and in major destruction, and tremendous economic losses and missed political opportunities to resolve this conflict.
2- Because of the changing nature, forms and tools of the present wars which became dependent on advanced technology and the use of Artificial Intelligence.
In this respect, it is quite clear that there is a major and widening technological gap between the military capabilities of Israel, that is supported by the United State, on the one hand, and that of the Palestinian resistance and the Arab countries of the ME region, on the other.
3- And as well because of the remarkable and significant change that happened, and somehow prevailed in the world pertaining to the increasing awareness worldwide of the Palestinian sufferings as well as the urgent and growing need to resolve the Palestinian issue. This is apparent in 157 countries recognizing a Palestinian State including 15 European countries.
Noteworthy, the shift in world public opinion did not spare the United States where the Palestinian issue played a role in the election of Zohran Mandani, a Pro Palestinian activist, as the first Moslem mayor of New York, albeit with a sizable Jewish support.
However, the main obstacle remains the current Israeli extremist government, which is not amenable to any meaningful peaceful solution to this unresolved problem that dates back eight decades ago.
In conclusion and in view of all these developments, I believe that the Palestinians and the Arabs should embark on a new and peaceful initiative and should position themselves not only in anticipation of a change in the Israeli Government, but also on what can be done by them in the region and in the world.
In my opinion, the plan of action should include:
- Developing a unified Palestinian stand particularly as the weakening of Hamas and the weakening of the Iranian hegemony in the Arab region, will enhance the possibilities of a Palestinian reconciliation, and consolidation.
- A collective and firm Arab position led by Egypt and Saudi Arabia, together with the GCC Countries to initiate an equitable, Permanent, and sustainable solution to the Palestinian problem based on the 2002 Arab peace Initiative.
- A worldwide political Arab campaign in the United States as well as in many of the major friendly countries in the world, and with all the peace-loving countries, to work together for a peaceful solution to this long lasting problem which I believe it would be in the interest of all.