Introduction

Since the late 1940s, U.S. foreign policy has been dominated by the grand strategy of liberal hegemony. This strategy emphasized extensive military commitments, a global security architecture under U.S. leadership, and a liberal international order underpinned by democracy promotion and open markets.  Yet, by the early 2000s, costly wars in

Afghanistan and Iraq, coupled with the 2008 financial crisis, raised doubts about the sustainability of this model. Against this backdrop, the doctrine of offshore balancing emerged as an alternative favored by realist scholars such as John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, Christopher Layne, and Barry Posen.

Offshore balancing calls for reducing direct U.S. military engagement abroad, relying on regional actors to preserve balances of power, and intervening directly only when vital interests are at risk. It seeks to minimize costs while retaining the ability to project decisive force if required.

Donald Trump, as the 45th President of the United States, became the first to formally and consistently apply offshore balancing in practice. Trump rejected multilateralism, criticized his predecessors for pursuing “endless wars,” and placed “America First” at the center of foreign policy. Nowhere was this clearer than in the Middle East, where his administration pursued maximum pressure on Iran, normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states through the Abraham Accords, relied on proxies and precision strikes against

terrorist groups, and significantly reduced U.S. military commitments.

The aim of this article is twofold: first, to analyze how offshore balancing shaped Trump’s

Middle East policy; and second, to identify the implications and constraints that this

strategy produced for Iran’s regional position.

Methodology

This study adopts a qualitative, interpretive methodology grounded in the neorealist tradition of international relations theory. Offshore balancing is used as the theoretical framework to evaluate the coherence of Trump’s foreign policy actions.

Data were collected from three categories:

1.   Primary sources – official U.S. government documents including the National Security Strategy of 2017, Trump’s inaugural addresses (2017 and 2025), State Department fact sheets on “maximum pressure,” and White House statements on the Abraham Accords.

2.   Secondary sources – scholarly analyses by Mearsheimer, Walt, Layne, Brands, Posen, and others, as well as peer-reviewed articles in journals of international relations and security studies.

3.   Policy reports and media coverage – outputs from institutions such as Brookings, the Washington Institute, BBC, Reuters, and AP News, providing real-time accounts of U.S. actions in Iran, Israel, and the wider region.

The method of analysis was comparative and deductive:  Trump’s policies were assessed against the six principles of offshore balancing (cost reduction, reliance on proxies, ending free-riding, minimal direct intervention, light-footprint counterterrorism, and economic insularity). The implications for Iran were then derived through process-tracing, linking U.S.

policies to observable shifts in Tehran’s security, diplomacy, and economy.

Results and Discussion

1. U.S. Withdrawal from the JCPOA and Maximum Pressure

Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) was emblematic of offshore balancing. By rejecting a multilateral agreement, he sought to pressure Iran unilaterally through sanctions, isolating it diplomatically and crippling its economy without committing U.S. forces to war. The policy reinstated primary and secondary sanctions on oil, finance, and industry, aiming to weaken Iran’s capacity to fund regional proxies such as Hezbollah and the Houthis. The targeted killing of Qassem Soleimani in 2020 reflected the “light footprint” principle—high-impact strikes without escalation into occupation.

For Iran, this produced acute economic strain and strategic uncertainty.  Although negotiations resumed indirectly in Oman in 2025, they were derailed by joint Israeli-U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. Even then, Trump resisted a full-scale war, demonstrating the restraint characteristic of offshore balancing.

2. Reducing Costs and Burden-Sharing

Trump repeatedly criticized U.S. allies for “free-riding” on American security guarantees. In the Middle East, this translated into encouraging Gulf states to purchase arms and assume more responsibility for their own defense.  The administration reframed U.S. involvement

strictly in counterterrorist terms, rejecting “nation-building.” His 2025 inaugural address emphasized that U.S. success would be measured by wars ended or avoided. This reflects offshore balancing’s economic logic: reducing military expenditures while maintaining deterrence through superior strike capability.

3. The Abraham Accords

Perhaps Trump’s most lasting regional legacy was the Abraham Accords (2020), which normalized relations between Israel, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. By forging an Arab–Israeli alignment under U.S. sponsorship, Trump institutionalized a coalition against Iran while limiting the need for large U.S. deployments. Offshore balancing here is evident: relying on allies to maintain a favorable regional balance while the U.S. acts as a broker rather than as a direct security guarantor. The anticipated inclusion of Saudi Arabia in a second Trump term would intensify Iran’s isolation.

4. Counterterrorism and Authoritarian Partners

Trump approached Islamist militancy through blunt pragmatism. Unlike Bush or Obama, who emphasized democracy promotion, Trump openly supported authoritarian regimes that pledged to combat terrorism. His administration expanded drone strikes and special forces operations against ISIS while relying heavily on Iraqi and Kurdish partners. This approach embodied offshore balancing: high-intensity but short-duration interventions, minimal troop commitments, and reliance on local actors.

5. Support for Israel and the “Deal of the Century”

Trump’s policies toward Israel went beyond previous administrations. He recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, moved the U.S. embassy, and unveiled the “Deal of the Century” in 2020. Although Palestinians rejected the plan, it aligned with offshore balancing’s principle of cost reduction: by settling the Israeli-Palestinian dispute largely on Israeli terms, the U.S. could disengage from costly mediation while reinforcing an ally’s strength against Iran. However, the failure of the plan left Iran able to exploit Palestinian grievances, even as Arab normalization diluted that influence.

6. Implications for Iran

The cumulative effect of Trump’s offshore balancing in the Middle East posed five major

challenges for Iran:

•   Nuclear diplomacy: persistent economic pressure increased Iran’s need to

negotiate, but on terms of U.S. dominance.