white castle
in honor of his love for fast food - and his self opinion
From Air Force One to Economic Entanglement: The Real Stakes of Trump’s Middle East Diplomacy
Political Scientist Joseph Nye’s theory of soft power has long shaped discussions on U.S. foreign policy. Nye posited that American power was derived from more than just its military might. Yet, in the Middle East, the United States has repeatedly relied on hard military power as its primary instrument of influence. In today’s era of strategic competition between the United States, Russia, and China, where countries leverage diplomacy and economic power to expand influence, “sticky power,” or economic entanglement, is emerging as a new way for the United States to achieve its goals.
President Donald Trump’s trip to the Middle East in early May underscored this shift, securing over a trillion dollars in long-term investment transactions with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. These deals, spanning defense, aviation, artificial intelligence (AI), and infrastructure, reflect a calculated move by the Trump administration to entrench U.S. influence in the region through economic leverage rather than its traditional dependence on the military. Although these deals may take years to pan out, and despite the controversy surrounding Qatar’s gift of a $200 million luxury jet, Trump’s diplomacy represents a profound turn toward economic statecraft as a stabilizing force. Furthermore, these deals underscore the administration’s priorities: maintaining American influence in the Middle East while positioning the United States to counter China’s growing presence both in the region, as well as in the Indo-Pacific. By embedding the United States more deeply into the region’s economic and technological infrastructure, this shift toward “sticky power” strengthens regional partnerships, reshapes Middle East power dynamics, and reinforces America’s global strategic position in an era of intensifying competition. As Trump continues to reinforce his foreign policy priorities, expanding the use of “sticky power” will be essential to sustaining U.S. influence and outcompeting rivals across the globe.
Sticky Power vs. Sharp Power
In 2009, Walter Russell Mead, building on Nye’s distinction between hard and soft power, introduced the complementary concepts of “sharp” and “sticky” power, expanding the framework for understanding how states project influence in the modern world. Mead argued that hard power, which compels others to act through force or pressure, can be divided into two primary forms: military might and economic leverage. He characterized traditional military force as “sharp power,” a form of influence that obtains compliance through direct pressure and threat, while economic influence functions as “sticky power,” drawing states into a web of institutions and incentives that make disengagement more costly and difficult.
After decades of relying on sharp power in the Middle East, and amid renewed efforts to prioritize a strategic shift to the Indo-Pacific, the Trump administration’s recent foreign policy trip stands out as a masterclass in the application of sticky power.
Trump’s Middle East Deals
The tangible outcomes of Trump’s Middle East trip reflect sticky power in action. In Saudi Arabia, Trump secured a $600 billion agreement that includes a $142 billion arms deal and major investments in AI and energy infrastructure, including a $20 billion commitment from Saudi company DataVolt to build AI data centers in the United States. Qatar followed with pledges totaling up to $300 billion, including a commercial aircraft deal with Boeing and a $2 billion drone purchase. The UAE reaffirmed its plan to invest $1.4 trillion in the United States over the next decade.
These deals, while framed as economic partnerships, serve a dual purpose of deepening interdependence and embedding American influence in the region’s technological and defense sectors. This approach is sticky power at its most potent, as the deals leverage economic incentives to create long-term strategic alignment.
Sticky Power and Strategic Objectives
The Trump administration’s logic behind these economic engagements becomes clearer when viewed through the lens of broader U.S. geopolitical objectives. First, in deepening economic ties with these Gulf States, the United States aims to crowd out Chinese influence (both physically and financially) by offering an alternative network of security, investment, and technological collaboration. Second, the easing of sanctions on Syria signals an attempt to steer Damascus away from Moscow’s orbit, reducing Russia’s foothold in the region without direct confrontation. Third, by bolstering the capabilities and resilience of partners such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar, Washington is reinforcing a regional counterweight to Iran’s destabilizing activities. Finally, these moves signal a renewed push to revive the spirit of the Abraham Accords. Despite Israel’s concerns over its exclusion from the trip, particularly over policies like lifting sanctions on Syria, Trump’s moves may ultimately deepen Israel’s integration into a regional framework of cooperation and shared interests. Underpinning all of these positions is a deliberate shift away from relying on military power toward employing long-term economic interdependence and institutional alignment to exert greater U.S. influence in the region.
Sticky Power Misapplied: India and the Cold War
The Cold War-era diplomatic distance between the United States and India illustrates the consequences of underestimating sticky power and serves as a cautionary example for managing other key relationships. In 1971, amid escalating tensions between India and Pakistan, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi sought support from the United States. However, President Richard Nixon, prioritizing his nascent rapprochement with China, chose instead to back Pakistan, even dispatching the Seventh Fleet to the Bay of Bengal in a show of force. This decision alienated India and pushed it closer to the Soviet Union, culminating in the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Cooperation.
Over the following decades, India developed a defense relationship with Moscow, purchasing most of its military hardware from Russia. Washington’s failure to appreciate the enduring impact of sticky power allowed the Soviet Union to maintain strategic influence in India. Only in recent years has Washington attempted to re
