During a first official foreign trip abroad as president, Donald Trump is expected to propose the establishment of an “Arab NATO” while visiting Saudi Arabia.

The purpose of the formal new alliance system would be to coordinate the fight against terrorism and combat Iranian influence in the region, according to an initial report in The Washington Post.

“[W]e should be looking to extricate ourselves militarily from that blood-soaked region, not going deeper in.”

More from LifeZette TV

MORE NEWS: Trump Supporters At Wisconsin Rally Chant ‘Nobel Peace Prize’

Central to the plan will be Trump’s announcement of new defense aid for the Saudis that will constitute one of the largest arms sales in history.

The plan, which is reportedly the result of ongoing negotiations between Jared Kushner and Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, generated concern among populists who supported Trump’s campaign rhetoric opposing entanglement in Middle East conflicts.

Do you agree that protesting is acceptable, but rioting is not? Yes No Email Address (required) By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement Results Vote

“An ‘Arab NATO Treaty’ would mean a permanent U.S. military presence in the region and U.S. war guarantees for undemocratic and despotic regimes,” conservative commentator Pat Buchanan told LifeZette.

[lz_graphiq id=fMJxwI0NDW5]

“It would draw us deeper into the Saudi war in Yemen, a humanitarian disaster, and potentially into any war with Iran — the dream of the Sunni Arabs and Israel,” Buchanan said. “Already fighting in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, is it really wise for us to commit to fight new wars that might break out?”

Moreover, “siding openly with the Sunni Arab powers could bring us into conflict with Russia, which is backing the Alawite regime in Damascus and providing arms to Iran,” Buchanan explained. “Why the Arab monarchies of the Middle East would want America to come fight for them is understandable. But what is the benefit we would derive from handing out new war guarantees?” said Buchanan.

MORE NEWS: PA Supreme Court Rules Mail-In Ballots May Be Counted Three Days After Election

Other foreign affairs and national security experts cautiously praised the move as a deterrent to Iranian hegemonic ambitions.

“It could enhance deterrence against Iran, advance burden-sharing, and encourage the development of an integrated missile defense architecture to blunt the growing Iranian ballistic missile threat,” said Jim Phillips, Senior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Heritage Foundation’s Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy.

“Such an alliance could also become a focus for ratcheting up diplomatic, economic and military pressure against Iran for its aggressive intervention in Syria and arms transfers to Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen,” Phillips said.

Robert Kaufman, a professor at the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy and author of “Dangerous Doctrine: How Obama’s Grand Strategy Weakened America,” agreed such an alliance system would prove a powerful deterrent to Iran but raised concerns over the governing ideology of the potential member nations.

“NATO is a democratic alliance grounded in shared values. Any alliance with non-democratic regimes qualifies more as an alliance of convenience,” but “Trump is right, however, that the latter may be possible as a counterweight to Iran,” said Kaufman.

Of course, such an alliance may not even be possible.

“Although the administration has described its proposal as an ‘Arab NATO,’ what emerges from Trump’s trip to the Middle East is likely to fall far short of the NATO alliance,” Phillips told LifeZette.

“Many of the potential members of such an Arab alliance distrust each other and are unlikely to upgrade multilateral security cooperation to the degree maintained by NATO allies,” Phillips continued.

[lz_related_box id=”795193″]

Phillips also acknowledged that the establishment of an “Arab NATO” could indeed further entangle the U.S. in foreign conflicts.

“The potential drawbacks are that the alliance could draw the United States deeper into Middle East conflicts and possibly the internal problems of alliance members facing insurgencies or separatist rebellions,” he said.

“America must restore, not further surrender, her freedom of action in deciding for ourselves when and where we go to war,” said Buchanan. “As for the Middle East, we should be looking to extricate ourselves militarily from that blood-soaked region, not going deeper in.”