The imminent visit takes place at a critical moment for the West Asian region—one that requires, more than ever, a redefinition of the concepts of security, peace, and regional cooperation. Although the official purpose of the trip is said to be assisting in “regional stability and security,” previous experiences and the strategic framework within which such visits are defined have raised serious doubts about its objectives and outcomes.

The prevailing mindset governing US foreign policy in the region, which is also represented by the current President, generally defines the region not as a space for genuine and endogenous cooperation but as an arena for consolidating its own interests. The result of this approach over the past decades has been nothing but instability, destructive competition, and the erosion of national sovereignty in many countries of the region.

Regional countries must be cautious not to tie their fate to such visits. Past experiences have shown that following imported security models not only fails to resolve issues but, in many cases, has exacerbated conflicts and contributed to the formation of prolonged crises. Strategic dependence on external powers has, in effect, turned regional countries into passive players in security dynamics.

The recent US military threats against Iran should also be viewed within this context. Although Iran has consistently emphasized that it considers the security of its neighbors as part of its own security and has no intention of aggression, the US military presence in certain countries in the region has framed the situation such that any provocative action could steer the region towards a widespread crisis. Many analysts have warned about the consequences of such a scenario, which would benefit no country in the region and could also destroy the foundations of trust and regional cooperation for years to come.

In this context, the issue of ensuring security for a regime like Israel, which has a history of violence, occupation, and crisis creation, cannot be justified within the logic of collective regional security. Israel has repeatedly shown that, rather than playing a constructive role in the region, it has become a center of conflict, instability, and interference in the affairs of other countries. The attempt to link regional security to the demands of Tel Aviv means ignoring the realities on the ground and the shared values of the peoples of the region. True security is incompatible with the logic of supporting Israel because security is built on justice, mutual respect, and non-interference, not by relying on a regime whose legitimacy is itself contested.

Before the trip, the US President has also tried to dominate the media space, making claims such as the end of the Yemen crisis and the surrender of the Houthis—claims that have been rejected by the involved parties and appear more as part of his media strategy for political gain than a genuine effort to resolve the crises. This media frenzy, which has been used by this camp many times before major developments, indicates that long-term and structural goals have given way to short-term interests and internal political messages.

Regardless of the media hype and the frenzy surrounding this trip, in the coming days and weeks, particularly after Trump’s return from the region, it will become clear whether this visit will remain at the level of media coverage and statements or if this time a different experience will unfold.