Trump presidency: What will it change in ME?

Scott Peterson

THE prospect of a Trump presidency is resonating across the Middle East, bringing uncertainty and the likelihood of real change. Donald Trump has given few specifics about foreign policy, except to embrace iconoclasm. It’s about “winning” America’s wars, crushing the so-called Islamic State (IS), and holding traditional allies – such as those of the Persian Gulf, as well as NATO – to account for their security dependence on US military strength.
And Mr. Trump’s praise of strongmen presidents like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoðan is raising questions about how much he may embrace their world view. Eight years under President Obama has transformed US relations with Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan – all crucial but troubled nations that present complex foreign policy issues for the US. But will isolation or intervention prevail? And what key pivot points in US policy could Trump’s inclinations transform yet again? Mr. Erdoðan was one of the first leaders to congratulate Trump, and has invited the US president-elect to a meeting “as soon as possible.”
“There is one positive and one negative perspective from Erdoðan’s point of view,” says Behlül Özkan, an analyst at Marmara University in Istanbul. “Trump would not bother Erdoðan with human rights, jailed journalists, and academics. That would be a relief for the AKP,” says Mr. Özkan, referring to Erdoðan’s ruling Justice and Development Party. “However, Erdoðan’s proxies in Syria, including armed fundamentalist groups, would be in a difficult position to get American aid.” One similarity is Erdoðan’s conviction that the two men speak the same language. “He thinks exactly like that,” says Özkan. “Both are far-right leaders for me. Both are construction lovers. Erdoðan is also obsessed with real estate and airports and bridges.”
Few relationships have seen as much change under Obama as that between Iran and the US. While hardliners on both sides still fire rhetorical bombshells, Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani shepherded the conclusion of a landmark nuclear deal in July 2015. The question for Iran is: Which Donald Trump will be making decisions? Will it be the open-minded tycoon who years ago complained that “no one talks to Iran,” and the candidate who noted positively that “Iran kills IS”? Or will it be the hard-line candidate who said the “disastrous” nuclear deal should be renegotiated, and promised never to “allow” US sailors to again be captured and humiliated by Iran? Or will Trump present the pragmatic businessman, whose nose for a deal will trump anti-Iran ideology?
Obama aimed to end America’s longest-ever war, which has ground on since 2001. But continued violence against the US and NATO-supported Afghan security forces has meant Obama has stopped the drawdown, and is now keeping more than 8,000 American troops on the ground. And casualties keep coming, including four Americans killed inside the Bagram airbase on Saturday by an Afghan suicide bomber.
“Afghanistan was barely mentioned at all in the campaign and debates, because there is no other approach than a large-scale holding operation, politically and militarily, to stop the deterioration,” says Alexey Yusupov, country director of the German Friedrich Ebert Foundation in Kabul. After 15 years of war that has already swallowed billions of dollars in a spotty nation-building exercise, cost tens of thousands of lives, and left the Taliban again ascendant, future US steps will require deft handling. The US troop count was 40,000 when Obama took office. “The surge and its abrupt drawdown have not brought any sustainable success, so the way toward peace talks still looks lengthy and complicated,” says Mr. Yusupov.
While the Taliban has consolidated since 2014, it is only being prevented from controlling some provincial capitals by US-led international help. Audacious attacks in the heart of the capital are a steady reminder of the Taliban presence. Naming specific dates for pullouts, as the Obama administration has done, “would be catastrophic,” Yusupov says. “Afghanistan is OK for now, but any prolonged neglect can lead to collapse.”
— Courtesy: The CS Monitor

Share this post

    scroll to top