Here
and
Now

opinions

Could Trump save U.S. Mideast policy? Or just make it worse?

11 Comments

As the U.S. election results trickled in in the early hours of Nov 9, Syrian government forces began yet another assault on Aleppo - with humanitarian workers and medical centers again in the line of fire.

When historians look back on the presidency of Barack Obama, they may well see the handling of Syria - and perhaps the wider Middle East - as his greatest single failure. Now, the future of the world's most geopolitically tangled region is being dumped on the desk of Donald Trump.

Compared to those outsiders who have tried to steer its destiny in the past - Winston Churchill, Franklin D Roosevelt, the multiple conflicting figures of the last two administrations - Trump is clearly woefully underprepared.

The Trump Organization has only a smattering of real estate projects across the Middle East - a couple of towers under construction in Istanbul, several businesses operating in Saudi Arabia. The most significant are two major golf courses under construction in Dubai - and one of them chose to briefly remove his name late last year after the Republican frontrunner threatened to ban Muslim migration to the United States.

For U.S. presidents, expertise and intellect clearly have been no guarantee of success, in the Middle East or elsewhere. Trump does have a window to somehow reset relations - but what that means, and how it will turn out, is far from clear.

As with almost everything else about the president-elect, the signs for now are contradictory.

Trump has deliberately revealed nothing about his "secret plan" to defeat Islamic State - a point providing much fodder for the satirists of "Saturday Night Live". Indeed, we have no real idea whether he has a plan at all. Early suggestions, however, would seem to be that he views the fight against the group and others like it at the very center of his Mideast and wider national security strategy.

That, at least, is certainly the message being sent by one of his earliest big appointments, that of retired Lieutenant General Micheal Flynn as national security advisor. The former Defense Intelligence Agency chief has made it clear few options are off the table when it comes to fighting Islamist militancy. More controversially, he has also made it clear he views the United States in conflict with the Islamic religion itself - something he has frequently referred to as a "political movement" existentially opposed to the United States.

Clearly, like much of Trump's rhetoric during the campaign, this is primarily a message aimed at a domestic U.S. audience - and perhaps one that served him well. Such statements, however, are inevitably also seen and broadcast across the Middle East - and may yet prove more counterproductive than any actual policy decisions.

Not only will suggesting that all Muslims are militants play terribly in the Middle East, it may also help Islamic State "weaponize" already-radicalized Muslims in Europe and the United States.

The entire message of IS, after all, has been that Islamic populations have no choice but to back them or an aggressive, uncompromising and anti-Islamic West. Local governments and the Obama administration had been relatively successful in making the case that that is grotesquely simplistic, that IS and its methods are simply a brutal, nihilistic path to nowhere. At worst, Trump and those around him may already be becoming the most effective propagandists Islamic State could dream of.

In truth, it is far from clear what action Trump might take against Islamic State that would differ significantly from that of his predecessor. Airstrikes might be ramped up, particularly against the IS headquarters in the Syrian city of Raqqa. More aggressive Bush-era interrogation techniques such as waterboarding might come back into fashion. The broader strategy - of airstrikes, support for local forces and avoiding major troop deployments will almost certainly continue.

The battle for Mosul in Iraq, for example, has been as much coordinated by local forces as it has by Washington. Whatever Trump says, that seems unlikely to change. Indeed, given his opposition to "nationbuilding," Trump and his administration may well be more open to that kind of locally-based solution.

The Middle East, however, has always been more complicated than the battle against individual groups like al-Qaida or IS. Trump will have to make a range of other decisions that will affect the lives of millions.

What decisions Trump makes on the broader Syrian conflict will, in many respects, be just as important as those he makes on the narrow issue of IS. One of the reasons for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad trying so hard to capture Aleppo this year is that they almost certainly expected Hillary Clinton to win the White House. She might well have ramped up U.S. involvement in the conflict, trying to push back Russia and evict the Syrian leader.

That could have been a disaster, furthering the Obama administration's failed approach of intervening just enough in Syria to keep the war going without genuinely helping anyone or seriously affecting the outcome. At worst, it could have sparked war with Russia.

A peace deal that sees Assad remain in power might not be the worst thing, particularly if it came with safeguards and incentives to avoid too brutal a postwar clampdown. At the end of the day, stitching the country back together will be difficult but not impossible - and it is a task that the United States can only assist, not unilaterally impose.

If Trump and Flynn do have a doctrine between them, it clearly involves working with sometimes repressive regimes such as those of Turkey's Tayyip Erdogan or Egypt's Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. (As a private consultant, incoming national security advisor Flynn is reported to have had business dealings with both.)

The 2011 "Arab Spring" proved that simply relying on local despots does not itself guarantee stability. Its aftermath, however, has also demonstrated America's limits when it comes to shaping events in those countries.

Trump and Flynn must also decide what to do with Iran, which the U.S. president-elect has described as "the biggest sponsor of terrorism around the world." Trump has pledged to tear up Obama's nuclear deal, potentially making it much harder to work together on any other enemies such as IS.

As ever, there is also the thorny issue of U.S.-Israeli relations. Where Trump stands on that remains almost anyone's guess - indeed, his anti-Muslim statements during the campaign were enough to win a public rebuke from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

After the last few decades, a U.S. administration that simply does less in the Middle East might well serve everyone's interests. The risk, though, is that in chasing domestic political gain, Trump's rhetoric may simply wind up inflaming extremism and leaving his successor with even greater problems.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2016.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

11 Comments
Login to comment

Could Trump save U.S. Mideast policy? Or just make it worse?

I can't think anything he's made better.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I doubt that even Trump could make it any worse than it already is.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Trump's goldshirts have spent the last year blasting the "mainstream media" for its "bias", yet the real bias in the media is what's on display in this article, a bias toward Trump by taking a "balanced" approach to the issue when there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest Trump will or can do anything to make it better. He's not even articulated a policy (beyond a promise to do it bigly), yet this article gives him the benefit of the doubt that maybe he's got a shot. It's like if you're a professional football player who has trained to be in top physical condition and some fat elderly braggart in the stands has been heckling you all game, and the announcer puts it on even odds that maybe he could score a touchdown better than you. "Let's give him the benefit of the doubt."

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The Trump Organization has only a smattering of real estate projects across the Middle East

Smattering? I've read US$tens of millions worth. His projects include those in Saudi Arabia. I wonder what his relationship with the Saudi ruling family is and how this could affect his approach to MENA.

I also wonder what further projects his 'family' will have in MENA and elsewhere in the world.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Trump's understands the Middle East through the filter of his real estate interests. At "best" Trump would be like every other U.S. president who applied discreet military tyranny over the rest of the world. The one exception could be that he would be the first postwar president not to be Russophobic. This might have a good impact on establishing a brokered peace in Syria. But to expect anything good to come out of a Trump Middle Eastern policy is to hope miracles.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Has no one pointed out that the banning of Muslims from immigrating to the USA is unconstitutional? It is quite as unconstitutional as banning all civilian guns (barring a new amendment). Freedom of religion is guaranteed. The possible political nature of religion is irrelevant (as it has always been there in every religion--even "just sitting" taken to mean not engaging in politics means letting others get on with it). Even if an administration were to try banning folks on a religious basis, the Supreme Court at least would have to revoke the process.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Could Mickey mouse stop the world from turning?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

He has a Jewish son in law and quite a powerful man with connections in NY City. If anyone can fix things, Trump can and will. Watch and mark my words with a time stamp and date.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

His objectives are likely to be different from those of all the parties on the ground. It could be interesting if even some of the current viewpoints change slightly. It could be disastrous too, but it can't be much worse than it is now. Let's hope.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Has no one pointed out that the banning of Muslims from immigrating to the USA is unconstitutional?

First off, Trump has made clear that he has no plans to ban Muslims. That's just another fake news talking point.

Secondly, the constitution says nothing at all about immigration policies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites