Trump’s strategy is a game-changer.

Trump’s strategy is a game-changer.

18/12/2025

Narmin Al-Mufti
From the moment the Trump administration announced its National Security Strategy 2025 earlier this week, it became clear that the world was facing a document unlike any before it. Washington no longer speaks with the tone of a superpower that views the world’s regions as fixed spheres of influence, but rather with the tone of a shrewd businessman calculating his moves with one eye on profit and the other on minimizing losses.

This shift, which some analysts have described as “turning geopolitics into a balance sheet of gains and losses,” makes the Middle East appear in the document more as an investment area than as an arena of conflict or a security responsibility.

Before delving into the specifics of the Middle East, the document reveals a broader vision of the world in which Washington operates. The strategy views the world as an arena of economic competition where politics, trade, national security, and industrial capacity are intertwined. The United States no longer sees itself as a global policeman, but rather as a power that advances only when its intervention is profitable and withdraws when costs become burdens.

The strategy outlines a world order where power is realigned according to production, technology, and strategic materials, rather than military might or traditional rhetoric. China is treated primarily as a trade rival before a military one, Russia as a disruptive force rather than a rising power, and Europe as a hesitant partner that must be pushed toward self-reliance. The rest of the world is divided into two categories: countries that can generate added value and those that are merely a drain on resources. In such a world, geographical location becomes less important than the ability to be integrated into the network of American interests, and traditional partnerships become a burden if they do not yield tangible benefits.

In this context, Iraq stands out as a test case for this shift. For over two decades, Iraq was the focus of the American military and political presence, yet it now operates in a gray area. It is neither a country Washington wants to abandon entirely, nor is it a country that occupies the top spot in its new priorities. American strategy views Iraq as a country with substantial resources, a rising market, and a sensitive geopolitical location, but simultaneously as a country with which America is hesitant to commit itself through new military engagements. This makes the relationship with Iraq, from Washington’s perspective, one tied to “measurable benefits.”

From a political perspective, the United States is keen to maintain its role in Iraq, but without the full-scale involvement it was accustomed to in the past. What Washington seeks is a flexible, low-cost relationship built on intelligence cooperation, limited support, and investments that protect its interests without requiring a massive military presence. Iraq, for its part, must balance seizing this opportunity with preserving its national sovereignty in the face of regional and international challenges, thus presenting a true test of the state’s ability to realign its domestic and foreign priorities.

From an economic standpoint, the Americans believe that direct or indirect support must be matched by greater access to the Iraqi market and opportunities for energy, technology, and infrastructure companies. Any Iraqi move toward expanding its relationship with Washington will be measured not only by Baghdad’s commitment to security but also by its ability to provide a competitive economic environment that balances its partnerships with the East and West without becoming an arena for competitive conflict.

From this perspective, Iraq can benefit from a reshaping of relationships, particularly in the areas of gas, renewable energy, transportation, and reconstruction. If it fails to do so, it may find itself marginalized by the United States in a region where alliances are shifting rapidly and opportunities are turning into risks.

This strategy, from a broader perspective, is not merely a traditional foreign policy, but rather an American vision of the entire world—a world where economic interests are intertwined with security and political priorities, and where intervention is constrained by profit and loss rather than moral or historical obligation. In this context, countries that can offer added value to Washington’s interests will remain within its sphere of interest, while those less productive may be neglected. The world, in this sense, is no longer a place for traditional roles, but a laboratory for interests and delicate balances that America measures according to its own interests.

The new American strategy is neither a threat nor a pure opportunity for Iraq, but rather a test of Baghdad’s ability to read the global shift and understand that relations today are measured by mutual interests, not loyalty or history. If the Middle East is becoming an “investment arena,” as Trump’s critics claim, then the most important question for Iraq is: Does it want to be a player that dictates its terms, or a commodity bought and sold in a deal larger than itself?

In conclusion, Trump’s new document is not merely a change in foreign policy; it is a declaration of a new phase in the United States’ global role. This phase may witness clashes, power vacuums, or new alliances, but it will certainly force the world, from Baghdad to Berlin and from Mexico City to Beijing, to reassess what America means today and what it no longer means.

alsabaah.iq