An Analysis of Trump’s Speech on the Middle East and Sudan
Sudanhorizon – Mohamed Othman Adam
In approximately 30 minutes, U.S. President Donald Trump delivered a speech in 2025 that shook the political landscape, leaving many bewildered. It wasn’t because he embodied the words of the famed Arab poet Al-Mutanabbi, who once responded to critics of his complex language with: “It is upon us to speak, and upon you to interpret.” When asked, “Why don’t you say things that are easily understood?” he replied, “Why don’t you try to understand what is said?”
Trump’s speech was broad in its discussion of foreign affairs but particularly harsh toward his predecessor, Joe Biden. He delivered a scathing critique without restraint, avoiding any semblance of diplomacy or nuance, making the address as shocking as the American media had predicted in the days leading up to it.
A key surprise was Trump’s focus on the Middle East—a stark contrast to his first inaugural address in 2017, where the region was notably absent. Like many of his past remarks, that speech was largely centred on domestic concerns, and some even wrongly assumed that he had entirely turned inward, forgetting his interests abroad.
While his first inaugural speech in 2017 was, as we say in Sudanese dialect, “duraba” (meaning rough or unrefined), this latest address was even more forceful. It was filled with threats, not only to his domestic opponents but also implicitly to foreign nations. To those paying close attention, it was as if he were saying: “My words are directed at you, so listen carefully, neighbour.”
A Speech Focused on Power and Personal Vindication
Trump’s speeches often lay out broad strategic directions while leaving implementation to his administration. In this particular address, he appeared deeply resentful toward his detractors. He referred to himself (“I”) more than five times explicitly, reaching a peak when he mentioned his own assassination attempt, framing it as divine intervention:
“Those who sought to stop our cause tried to take my freedom—indeed, they even tried to take my life just a few months ago. In a beautiful field in Pennsylvania, a bullet from an assassin pierced my ear. At that moment, I felt—and now I believe more than ever—that my life was spared for a purpose. God saved me to make America great again.”
In contrast, his first inaugural speech focused more on “we”, aligning with the pattern of many populist and authoritarian leaders throughout history. Leaders often begin by speaking in collective terms—”we,” “the nation,” “our people”—contrasting themselves against external enemies (“them,” “the outsiders”). However, as their power solidifies, the rhetoric shifts to an “I vs. them” dynamic, a transition often linked to oligarchic rule.
However, the entrenched democratic system in the U.S. prevents such power consolidation over the long term. That said, Trump’s victory in the 2024 election was clearly a personal battle—one he fought against real or perceived enemies—and he emerged triumphant. With that, he reassured Americans that all the failures of past administrations would now be rectified:
“All of that changes today, and it will change very quickly.”
While this message was directed at the American public, it undoubtedly sent shockwaves abroad, signalling an aggressive foreign policy stance. Rather than adhering to the “Strike first or be struck” principle, Trump adopted a more unpredictable strategy, leaving many foreign nations uneasy about his next move.
Trump, the Military, and Hard Power
Trump was uncharacteristically clear when discussing the U.S. military, stating:
“Our armed forces will be free to focus on their sole mission—defeating America’s enemies. As in 2017, we will once again build the most powerful military the world has ever seen. We will measure success by the battles we win and the wars we end—and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never have to fight.”
He then declared that his greatest legacy would be that of a “man of peace.”
This claim might seem contradictory, given that Trump’s policies have often been aggressive. However, his global affairs approach aligns more with a businessman striking deals. He envisions geopolitics as transactional, where every interaction is a negotiation with winners and losers.
Trump’s Middle East Policy: A Clear Strategy
Unlike vague diplomatic statements, Trump’s actions in the Middle East have been defined by two core principles:
He ended active wars and secured the safety of U.S. allies—but without direct military involvement. He emphasized preventing conflicts before they started, and under his leadership, even organizations like the UN and international watchdogs would not be allowed to challenge U.S. decisions. This can be inferred from his push to withdraw from international bodies like UNESCO, the World Health Organization, and environmental treaties, as well as his crackdown on the International Criminal Court when it investigated Israeli officials.
Securing American interests first, even at the expense of allies—Trump’s America does not tolerate free riders. He has criticized NATO allies for their reluctance to spend on defence, accused China of manipulating trade and labour costs, and rebuked neighbouring countries for “sending criminals and terrorists” into the U.S.
Trump and the Gaza War
The prolonged war in Gaza, accompanied by endless rounds of negotiations under President Biden, yielded little progress despite extensive diplomatic efforts by Secretary of State Antony Blinken. However, once Trump’s electoral victory was confirmed—and even before his inauguration—he called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, after which negotiations moved swiftly toward a ceasefire agreement.
Thus, even though Trump’s inaugural speech focused heavily on domestic issues, the only global event he explicitly took credit for was this diplomatic breakthrough:
“Before I officially took office, my team negotiated a ceasefire agreement in the Middle East—something that wouldn’t have happened without our efforts. I believe most of those present here understand that. And earlier this week, hostages began returning home. They are coming back, and it’s a beautiful sight. More will return. They started coming back on Sunday.”
A Leader of Action, Not Just Words
Trump’s effectiveness comes from his immediate follow-through on bold statements. His track record in the Middle East and beyond demonstrates this:
He declared that certain nations would pay large sums for U.S. protection—and they did.
He vowed to relocate the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem—and he did.
He promised to make a deal with Iran—and he did.
He warned that China would have to take him seriously—and they did.
He pledged to remove Sudan from the list of state sponsors of terrorism—and he did, albeit through immense pressure on Sudanese leadership at the time. Sudan paid the $335 million compensation from the parallel market—a decision that many Sudanese, including this writer, witnessed firsthand.