Reassessing American interests in the Middle East

Donald Trump faces several serious challenges in the region, from what to do in Syria, how to tackle Islamic State, taking on Iran, and, of course, Israel and the Palestinians.

By EYTAN GILBOA
Donald Trump (photo credit: REUTERS/JOE RAEDLE/POOL)
Donald Trump
(photo credit: REUTERS/JOE RAEDLE/POOL)
IT IS still difficult to know what vision and policies President-elect Donald Trump will adopt for United States policy in the Middle East since foreign policy issues, in general, and those of the Middle East, in particular, received little attention during the recent presidential election.
Trump made a few statements about challenges in the region and American-Israeli relations, but they were very broad and lacked focus. It will take some time before he completes the appointment of key officials in defense and foreign affairs, and formulates his strategies and specific policies.
The challenges and expectations that he will face are clearer, however.
There are always both continuity and change in American foreign policy. Incoming presidents, especially those from a party different than the outgoing presidents, like to adopt different, and sometimes vastly opposite policies and agenda to those of their predecessors.
As a strong anti-establishment candidate, Trump is likely to follow this practice even more so than other incoming presidents.
He severely criticized Obama’s foreign and national security policies, especially the Iran nuclear deal, the battle against Islamic terrorism, and the handling of American- Israeli relations. Trump exhibited a tendency to adopt a semi-isolationist antiglobalization posture for American foreign policy. But to “Make America Great Again,” he will have to be heavily involved in foreign affairs and, perhaps, define a new vision for American global leadership.
Trump faces several serious challenges in the Middle East: How to restore American credibility and leadership in the region? How to stop the horrible civil war in Syria? How to deal with the Russian intervention in Syria? How to destroy Islamic State? What to do about the Iran nuclear deal? How to repair relations with Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi? How to improve relations with Israel and what to do about Palestinian-Israeli negotiations? How to strengthen America’s Arab allies? All of America’s Arab allies and Israel would like to see a major change in the US strategic approach to the Middle East.
Obama has left a serious leadership vacuum in the region that was quickly filled by President Vladimir Putin. US allies expect Trump to restore American power and influence in the region. Obama’s policies have blurred the lines between allies and enemies, and US allies want Trump to clearly clarify who is a friend and who is a foe.
The No. 1 challenge is Putin’s Russia.
Putin has pursued an aggressive direct military intervention both in the Ukraine and in Syria. This behavior led to a serious direct confrontation with the Obama administration and the European Union. Putin was reported to be happy with Trump’s victory because he may have thought that Hillary Clinton would have continued to confront him, while with Trump there is a chance to reach an agreement to resolve the disagreements with the US in Europe and the Middle East.
In Syria, Russia’s primary goal is to save the regime of Bashar Assad and restore his rule over all the country. The second goal is to diminish US standing and restore Russian power and influence in the region.
Putin has been building air and naval bases; bombed Sunni-rebel groups supported by the US far more than he has Islamic State strongholds; and formed a strategic alliance with Iran. Moscow and Tehran share common goals in Syria, and are negotiating a huge arms deal that will completely modernize Iran’s conventional armed forces.
Putin has acquired a reputation as a determined leader and a reliable ally.
Trump was described as Putin’s “friend,” and it remains to be seen how his relationship with the Kremlin will change Russian behavior in Europe and the Middle East.
During the campaign, Trump said he would use his business experience to solve international conflicts via “deals.” There are several common elements in all types of negotiations, yet business bargaining is very different from diplomatic negotiation. Trump may offer Russia a deal based on US concessions in Syria in return for Russian concessions in the Ukraine and Europe. Any such deal will necessarily include Iran, and may lead to disagreement and tension between the US and its allies in the Middle East.
American allies are concerned about Iran’s military and political interventions in Syria, Iraq and Yemen, sponsorship of terrorism, destabilization of pro-Western governments, the nuclear deal, development of intercontinental ballistic missiles, and the relationship with Russia.
Iran is establishing a Shi’ite strategic axis that includes itself, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
Its purpose is to promote Iran’s hegemonic aspirations in the region, and it is much more dangerous to the region and the world than Islamic State. Russian support for this alliance increases its strength and threat.
Trump has defined the Iran nuclear deal as a “disaster” and “the worst deal ever negotiated,” and promised to cancel it. Since Congress did not approve the deal, Trump has the authority to reverse it. Yet, it was approved by the UN Security Council and includes several useful restrictions.
Trump is much more likely to ensure that Tehran fulfills all its nuclear obligations.
He also will be more inclined to deal forcefully with Iran’s aggressive behavior in the region.
During the Obama era, US-Israeli relations suffered many disagreements on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the nuclear deal with Iran. On the personal level, the Barack Obama-Benjamin Netanyahu relationship exuded a particularly toxic element that hobbled ties between the two countries.
It is likely that the personal relationship between Trump and Netanyahu will be much better, and the general environment at the White House much friendlier.
Since the establishment of Israel, every US president has expressed a desire to help resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and in every recent presidential election at least one of the candidates has promised to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel’s capital, Jerusalem. Trump is no exception.
Obama applied heavy pressure on Israel to promote negotiations with the Palestinians and was obsessive with any type of housing construction in the West Bank settlements.
This strategy failed. The Palestinians refused to negotiate directly with Israel, expecting Obama to “deliver” the Jewish State so that they would not have to make serious concessions in return for peace.
Trump is unlikely to prioritize the Israeli- Palestinian issue. He has said he wouldn’t force negotiations or a “solution.” And in stark contrast to the current, steadfast US position, he declared that he does not oppose settlements in the West Bank. He is also likely to oppose attempts by the Palestinians to obtain one-sided anti-Israel resolutions in international organizations, such as the UN Security Council.
In light of this potential approach, the Palestinians may conclude that their best option is to alter their strategy and seek an agreement via direct negotiations with Israel.
It is difficult to know whether Trump’s campaign promise to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem will be implemented. Like his predecessors, he may be persuaded that this action may damage American relations with the Muslim and Arab world.
Trump will soon have to reassess US interests in the Middle East, to produce new and more effective ways to deal with numerous challenges in a way that will best balance resources and goals.
The expectations for change are very high, perhaps too high, and the margins for error are becoming narrower than they were a decade ago. Global and regional actors, such as Russia and Iran, are likely to test Trump’s leadership and determination to achieve the goals he sets for US policy in the Middle East. He will have to demonstrate considerable patience, stamina and endurance to successfully cope with them.
Prof. Eytan Gilboa is Director of the Center for International Communication and Senior Research Associate at the BESA Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University.