Trump’s non-intervention stance not as simple as he thinks
Articles from Wall Street Journal (2) and Arab Digest (1).
Trump: fog lifting
Summary: Trump outlines Middle East policy: no toppling regimes, stability not chaos, ready to partner any nation to defeat IS.
Arab Digest
December 17, 2016
Donald Trump addressed supporters in Cincinnati on 1 December, the first stop on a “thank you” tour. The occasion resembled one of his campaign rallies and was reported accordingly. We have seen no full text, but there is a full video recording at link.
He included in his speech some material on his intentions as president which appeared to be based on a prepared text. For the first time so far as we are aware this included a paragraph on foreign policy (forty-two minutes in), mainly on the Middle East. He said:
We are going to appoint mad dog Mattis as our secretary of defence…. He’s about the closest thing we have to General George Patton and it’s about time. We will begin a major effort to rebuild our military. We want a strong military and we don’t want to use it. Ideally we don’t have to use it – although we will destroy Isis.
At the same time we will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past. We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments. Remember – six trillion dollars, in the Middle East. Our goal is stability not chaos, because we want to rebuild our country this time. We will partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the effort to defeat Isis and radical Islamic terrorism. In our dealings with other countries we will seek shared interests wherever possible and pursue a new era of peace, understanding and good will.” He went on to talk about immigration on familiar lines, including “we will construct a great wall at the border.
Some of the region’s “strong men”, notably Abd al-Fattah al-Sisi, Benjamin Netanyahu and Bashar al-Asad, have declared themselves ready for the role of “partner”.
On the rather flimsy foundation of the Cincinnati speech Gerald Seib, Washington bureau chief of The Wall Street Journal, has based the article below. The choice of Rex Tillerson, former CEO of Exxon, as Secretary of State which has had a surprisingly bad press gives nothing away but seems consistent with his interpretation.
Another wealthy businessman, oil magnate Rex Tillerson, is Trump’s choice as Secretary of State, making negotiations over climate change part of his remit.
Choice as Secretary of State is Tillerson [above] for having “reversed ExxonMobil’s long history of funding right-wing groups that denied the threat of global warming,” and suggested that he might “convince Mr. Trump not to pull out of” the Paris climate accord.
With the reservation that Trump clearly does not intend to tie his hands on policy, and believes that if he mis-speaks he can hope to set a new course without much penalty, we believe it is the best attempt we have seen to look into the Trump future.
* * * * *
Listen Closely: Donald Trump Proposes Big Mideast Strategy Shift
He signals a break from Obama and Bush: ‘We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments’
By Gerald F. Seib, The Wall Street Journal
December 12, 2016
If you happened to be listening carefully, Donald Trump told us something important a few days ago about the profoundly different approach he intends to take toward the Middle East and the threat of Islamic extremism.
The president-elect’s message was largely overlooked because it came in the middle of a typically raucous and rambling “thank you” rally in Cincinnati. News reports focused on his announcement that he would nominate as secretary of defence Gen. James Mattis—“Mad Dog Mattis” as he seems destined to be called by his new boss.
In a separate passage, one in which Mr. Trump clearly was following a script rather than freelancing, he said: “We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments, folks.”
After wasting “$6 trillion” in Middle East fights, he said, “our goal is stability not chaos.”
He added: “We will partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the effort to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism … In our dealings with other countries, we will seek shared interest wherever possible and pursue a new era of peace, understanding and goodwill.”
Those words actually are freighted with deep meaning, and offer some powerful indicators of the approach a Trump presidency will take in a region that has bedeviled every president since Richard Nixon. Mr. Trump is signalling an approach that is different not just from the one pursued by President Barack Obama, but even more different from the one followed by the last Republican president, George W. Bush.
On their face, these statements suggest:
— An end to the effort to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, for the effort to throw out Mr. Assad is nothing if not an effort to topple a regime.
— A partnership with Russia in the region, for Russian President Vladimir Putin certainly has demonstrated he is “willing to join in the effort” to defeat Islamic State in Syria.
— A warmer relationship with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, a strongman who has demonstrated an unmistakable ferocity in his own fight against Islamic extremism, while also being largely shunned by the Obama administration for shredding civil liberties in Egypt.
— A policy toward Iran that doubtless will be hostile and include an attempt to dissolve the Obama-negotiated deal on nuclear arms, but one that won’t include regime change in Tehran as an explicit goal.
Mr. Trump labelled his approach “a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past.” It’s one that proposes to be tougher on Islamic State than Mr. Obama has been, while also less willing to intervene in the region militarily than Mr. Bush was. That will be tricky.
The Trump formula suggests an approach unburdened by the need for consistency or adherence to any ideological framework.
Aaron David Miller, a longtime U.S. Middle East envoy and now vice president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, says this Trump approach will be “transactional.” By that he means it will use whatever means are necessary to transact the specific deal on the table, whether that deal is ending the Islamic State threat or retreating from the Iranian nuclear agreement without provoking a war.
The Trump formula also suggests an approach unburdened by the need for consistency or adherence to any ideological framework. One problem with that approach, though, is that it is full of inherent contradictions and potential unintended consequences.
President Hassan Rouhani of Iran meets a hoped-for new friend in Vladimir Putin (they are brothers-in-oil), in Ufa, Russia, November 2015. Photo by Reuters
For example, a partnership with Russia to defeat Islamic State also means empowering not just Russia’s friend there, Syrian President Assad, but also Mr. Assad’s chief regional ally, Iran. Iran has placed a huge bet on its relationship with Mr. Assad as the key to its hopes to expand its regional influence.
So teaming up with Russia and tolerating Mr. Assad in Syria to defeat Islamic State could have the unintended consequence of further empowering Iran—much as the war to topple Saddam Hussein in Iraq had the unintended consequence of clearing the path for expanded Iranian influence in the region.
In this April 11, 2013 photo, the Defence Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington before the House Intelligence Committee hearing on worldwide threats. This incoming National Security Adviser may oppose Trump’s inclination to side with Russia against Iran thus complicating, not simplifying, MidEast politics and economics. Photo by AP
That won’t please America’s Persian Gulf allies, who abhor Iran’s leadership, and surely isn’t the goal of Mr. Mattis and incoming national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, whose antipathy toward Iran’s clerical regime is well documented.
At the same time, abrogating the nuclear deal with Iran risks undermining that potential new partnership with Mr. Putin. Mr. Putin supports that deal and its provisions ending international economic sanctions, and has moved in smartly to cash in. Russia is seeking deals on nuclear energy projects in Iran, and the Russian news agency reported last month that the two nations are discussing a $10 billion arms deal.
“If you end the Iran deal you’re going to end up with a lot of awkwardness and unpleasantness with Mr. Putin,” says Mr. Miller. As that suggests, the Middle East has a way of befuddling new American presidents and their best-laid plans.