MADRID – According to various international policy experts, Donald Trump’s first term was characterized by a nationalist approach aimed at strengthening the independence of the United States and reducing its reliance on traditional allies.

Under the "America First" slogan, Trump employed tools such as threats and tariffs to reshape the balance of power in international relations.

Among the notable achievements of this strategy, as viewed by his administration, are the Abraham Accords, a series of agreements designed to “normalize” relations between Israel and Arab countries such as the United Arab Emirates and Morocco.

Looking ahead to a potential second term, Donald Trump envisions a foreign policy that could heighten competition within NATO, adopting a more demanding stance toward traditional allies. It is also likely that he will directly or indirectly support Israeli attacks on Iran, solidifying a personalized approach to decision-making and reaffirming his leadership style on the global stage.

In this context, Trump recently announced the appointment of Senator Marco Rubio as Secretary of State and Mike Waltz as National Security Advisor, moves that underscore his strategic vision. However, beyond the individuals involved, the question arises: is it possible to outline a comprehensive vision of his foreign policy?

Although Trump’s foreign policy was marked by episodes of confusion and instability, its overarching principles hold a certain logic. The former president views tariffs as a key tool to exert pressure on both allies and adversaries. He also maintains a critical stance toward allies, perceiving them more as burdens than as strategic partners against global threats. Furthermore, Trump regards immigration not only as an economic challenge but also as a cultural threat to the United States.  

That said, Donald Trump’s “unpredictable behavior” is expected to once again have a significant impact on the foreign policy of his administration.  

For instance, in his relationship with China, Trump might oscillate between an economically confrontational stance—similar to the trade war of his first term—and selective gestures of cooperation in strategic areas of mutual interest.  

In West Asia, his administration will likely aim to expand the Abraham Accords, incorporating more countries to solidify a network of alliances with Israel as the central hub. However, unilateral measures that destabilize certain regional actors and exacerbate existing tensions cannot be ruled out.

This unpredictability creates concern among the leaders of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), who fear that Trump’s policies could exacerbate instability in the region.  

Unlike during Donald Trump’s first term, when several GCC leaders supported the "maximum pressure" strategy against Iran, Persian Gulf states in recent years have shifted toward a more diplomatic approach, seeking dialogue and cooperation with Tehran.  

The potential return of a pressure-oriented policy toward Iran under a new Trump administration is causing unease in countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Their concern lies in how such an approach could affect their strategic and economic interests, especially in a context where regional stability is a top priority for them.  

At the same time, Israel’s actions in Gaza are seriously complicating efforts to expand the Abraham Accords. In this context, Arab leaders face a delicate balance, worried about the potential domestic and regional repercussions of supporting normalization with Israel at such a critical moment.  

If Donald Trump fails to provide the leadership Persian Gulf states expect from Washington, his return to the White House could push these countries to further diversify their strategic alliances. This could include strengthening ties with powers such as China and Russia, and even with Iran.  

As noted in previous analyses, the United States is likely to support Israel's actions against Iran's nuclear program. However, Donald Trump does not appear personally inclined to initiate a direct attack on Tehran. While he values the use of military force as a tool of leverage, he prefers to avoid direct confrontations with Iran— a stance that may differ from key figures in his administration, such as Secretary of State-designate Marco Rubio.  

Both Trump and his more moderate advisors seem to believe that the best approach toward Iran is through diplomacy. 

Nevertheless, Iran has made it clear that it is willing to engage in diplomatic contacts with any nation, provided its "red lines" are respected. However, the notion of entering negotiations under pressure remains entirely unacceptable to Tehran.