US: Project 2025 doesn't stray far from current approach to Middle East
Project 2025 has grabbed the attention of American voters for the past several months.
The more than 900-page dossier published by the Heritage Foundation, titled the Mandate for Leadership, lays out a massive policy wish list and a conservative vision for the United States, if the Republican Party were to return to the White House.
Republican nominee and former US President Donald Trump has distanced himself from Project 2025. However, many of the document's authors served in Trump's administration and could wield influence in a future one.
Some recommendations include drastic changes such as gutting entire federal agencies and ushering in sweeping immigration reforms. However, Project 2025's approach to the Middle East appears to be largely in line with many of Trump's previous administration's policies.
Some parts are also similar to bipartisan approaches to Middle East policies that the Democratic administration of President Joe Biden is also pursuing.
Middle East Eye breaks down what Project 2025 has to say about the Middle East.
Much of the conservative policy document's section on foreign policy outlines how the US needs to approach the collective defence of its allies in a "burden-sharing" manner, in which allies take a more prominent role in sustaining their militaries, rather than Washington providing security assistance.
"US allies must take far greater responsibility for their conventional defense," the document reads.
This was a key policy approach for Trump, who chastised European allies for not meeting the minimum requirement of spending at least two percent of their countries' GDPs on defence spending.
Many conservatives have criticised the large amount of military aid that the US provides to Ukraine, as it continues to fight Russia in a war that has lasted more than two years.
The document also calls on the US's allies in the Middle East to "take responsibility" for their own defences.
But the one ally that isn't required to pay for their own defence needs is Israel. The country receives several mentions throughout Project 2025, and in them, the document lays out the need for continued American support for the country, its military, and its economy.
"Sustain support for Israel even as America empowers Gulf partners to take responsibility for their own coastal, air, and missile defenses both individually and working collectively," Project 2025 reads.
This approach is not markedly different from the Democratic Party, which in its party platform for 2024 shunned a demand from progressives to include an arms embargo on Israel. The platform touts the "2016 Memorandum of Understanding" as " ironclad".
The 2016 memorandum refers to the Israeli-US agreement signed under former President Barack Obama, which gives Israel $3.8bn in US military aid each year. The memorandum is valid until 2028.
Project 2025 also urges any future Republican administration to continue building upon the 2020 normalisation agreements signed between Israel and four Arab countries - the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan.
The agreements were brokered by the Trump administration and established diplomatic relations between Israel and Arab countries not bordering Israel for the first time in history.
Now, the Heritage Foundation's project wants a Republican presidency to broker a normalisation agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia.
") rgba(220, 220, 220, 0.5); top: -15px; left: 0px;">
This, again, is the same approach the Democratic administration of Joe Biden has been pursuing for the past year. Biden officials have been trying to broker a Saudi-Israeli deal without success.
However, the policy dossier attempts to draw a distinction from the Democrats, saying that Biden is guilty of the "degradation of the long-standing partnership with Saudi Arabia".
When coming into office, Biden declared he was freezing the sale of offensive weaponry to Saudi Arabia, citing Riyadh's leading role in the Arab coalition fighting against the Houthis in Yemen. Several rights groups accused Saudi Arabia of using US weapons in attacks that killed Yemeni civilians.
One area in which Project 2025 separates itself from the bipartisan approach to the Middle East is on Turkey and the US-backed Kurdish groups operating in Syria.
The political initiative proposes a "rethinking of US support for YPG/PKK [People’s Protection Units/Kurdistan Worker’s Party] Kurdish forces".
The issue of the YPG has pitted the two Nato allies of Washington and Ankara at odds with each other for years.
Turkey considers the YPG an arm of the outlawed PKK group, while the Kurdish YPG militia plays a leading role in the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), an armed group that has been the US's principal partner on the ground in Syria in its fight against the Islamic State militant group (IS).
The PKK is also labelled a terrorist organisation by the US.
Middle East Eye reported in March that Ankara rapidly accelerated its attacks on the SDF amid Israel's war on Gaza, and the group fears they will be ditched by the US amid a possible US pullout from Syria.
Project 2025 says there is a need to rethink its support of the Kurdish armed fighters in Syria to keep Turkey "from 'hedging' toward Russia or China".
But the policy doctrine is not wholly different from Trump's approach to Syria, Turkey and the US-backed Kurdish fighters.
Under the Trump administration, the US imposed major sanctions on Turkey and kicked the country out of the joint-F-35 fighter jet programme after it acquired the Russian-made S-400 missile defence system.
However, a new book by Trump's former national security advisor HR McMaster says that Trump listened and was amenable to Erdogan's description of US support for the SDF. In a phone call on 24 November 2017, Erdogan, according to McMaster, described continued arms transfers to the SDF as a waste of money.
“Trump fell for it. ‘You're right, it is 'ridiculous,’ [Trump told Erdogan]," the book reported.
"I told General McMaster no weapons to anyone, now that it is over. I told General McMaster that to his face!"
McMaster said Trump had never ordered him to stop the delivery of weapons.
The Biden administration announced in 2022 that it was launching a four-nation summit with India, Israel and the United Arab Emirates. This led to the creation of the I2U2, a partnership between the four countries that has been dubbed the Quad 2.0 - a reference to the quadrilateral agreement between the US, Australia, Japan and India.
Project 2025 is calling for something similar, saying that "it is in the US national interest to build a Middle East security pact that includes Israel, Egypt, the Gulf states, and potentially India, as a second 'Quad' arrangement".
The arrangement suggested by the Heritage Foundation would aim to add another element to the I2U2 pact, security and military cooperation.
The US's Middle East allies have been calling for Washington to agree to a Nato-style security pact, and the Biden administration has reportedly been negotiating a possible security pact with Saudi Arabia.
However, such an agreement would appear to contradict the fact that Project 2025 has said the US's Gulf allies need to "take responsibility" for their own defences.
The Trump administration made a number of moves aimed at weakening the position of the Palestinian Authority (PA), which is responsible for the administration of the Israeli-occupied West Bank.
Trump in 2018 shuttered the office of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), the political party that heads the PA.
In Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation is calling for the complete defunding of the PA.
"The Palestinian Authority should be defunded," the document says point-blank.
The US has provided security assistance to the PA for decades, and the office of the US Security Coordinator for Israel and the PA was established in March 2005 as a means to better facilitate coordination between the two.
This policy comes in direct contradiction to the policy of the Democratic Party, which is to continue supporting the PA.
Project 2025 appears to continue the Trump administration's approach to Iran. It advocates for sanctions on Iran to prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Trump made the landmark decision to exit the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and reinstitute major sanctions on the country.
Iran continued to maintain compliance with the deal for several months after the US departure from the agreement. But then the Islamic Republic began enriching uranium at levels higher than allowed by the parameters of the agreement.
While Trump argued at the time that the nuclear agreement was allowing Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, Iran is now closer to enriching enough uranium for an atomic weapon than it was under the agreement.
Iran has emphasised it does not seek to build a nuclear weapon.
Part of Project 2025's strategy to counter Iran is also to continue arming Israel - another Trump approach to Iran.
The political initiative wants the US to ensure that "Israel has both the military means and the political support and flexibility to take what it deems to be appropriate measures to defend itself against the Iranian regime and its regional proxies Hamas, Hezbollah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad".
However, despite the Heritage Foundation's hawkish approach to Iran, it does not advocate taking direct military action against the country. Project 2025 also does not include Yemen's Houthis in the list of Iran-aligned groups that Israel needs to defend itself against.
Project 2025 aims to cut off several humanitarian missions it views as not aligned with US interests.
The US Agency for International Development's projects in Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen are on the list of those humanitarian missions it wants to snub.
With the Taliban in control of Afghanistan, the Bashar al-Assad government controlling most of Syria, and the Houthi movement in control of the majority of Yemen, Project 2025 has accused the aid projects of being "controlled by malign actors".
Ending the aid projects could have a major impact on those countries, with the three of them being home to some of the most dire humanitarian situations in the world.
The US has given around $6bn in response to the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, which has seen a downtick in conflict thanks to a truce between the Houthis and the Saudi-led coalition that has continued to hold water.
Another break from bipartisan foreign policy is on the issue of weapons sales.
The political initiative advocates for ending the executive branch's practice of notifying Congress about weapons sales before they are formally announced.
"Informal congressional notification or 'tiered review' is a hindrance to ensuring timely sales to our global partners," Project 2025 says.
"The tiered review process is not codified in law; it is merely a practice by which the Department of State provides a preview of prospective arms transfers before Congress is formally notified."
It is longstanding practice for the sitting US president to provide prior notification to Congress about potential arms sales before making any official actions.
In some cases, the administration will not proceed with the sale if Congress raises significant concerns about it.
However, it is required under US law for the president to issue a formal notice to Congress 30 days before any arms sale is finalised if that sale is worth more than $14m.