Sep 25, 2019, 5:34 PM
Journalist ID: 2382
News Code: 83491070
0 Persons
Trump's Middle East policy to backfire

Tehran, Sept 25, IRNA - US analysts and media believe that turbulent and misguided Middle East policy of the White House has not only been ineffective in Donald Trump's presidency, but it is gradually backfiring, and ultimately the consequences will befall the White House and the president.

Donald Trump has failed to follow a definite strategy for the Middle East and its developments in recent years. On the one hand, he is committed to the promise he made to the public before 2016, but on the other hand, he is pursuing disruptive policies in the region.

The president of the United States claims to try to intervene in the least in the affairs of the countries of the region. The change in White House approaches to the Middle East, however, began with Barack Obama's term, and the region's importance for the White House declined during the former US president. In fact, the rise of the power of America's most important global rival in East Asia, China, has led Washington to focus more of its energy and capability on the region and align with its goals and plans to push Beijing back.

White House heterogeneous policies

In this regard, Trump has shown that he is working to reduce White House involvement in regional affairs and is planning to reduce the number of Washington troops, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan; at the same time, he is suggesting that developments in the Middle East do not let the US government leave the region. The most important excuse Trump offers to American and world public opinion is Iran's policies, especially Tehran's regional influence and power.

Analysts raise opposing views against Trump's claims. The Center for Security Studies in Zurich, Switzerland, believes Donald Trump's Middle East policy is completely different from the approaches of Barack Obama. The US president is seeking to strengthen the position of Saudi Arabia and Israel and isolate Iran. This approach is implemented, but not in a coherent strategy but in a fragmented and disruptive way.

According to this European think tank, fueling Shia and Sunni divisions, neglecting to promote democratic norms, uncertainty about Middle East peace and the type of Washington-Tel Aviv relationship, views on Turkey and Egypt, and efforts to create Arabian NATO are among heterogeneous components that are within the framework of Trump's plans.

Apart from the usual US approach to the Zionist regime, the United States in the Middle East has only its oil-rich Arab states as its friends and allies, of course, the White House also sees these countries as milking cows, which secure US economic and military interests with petrodollars. Even during the Trump presidency, the relationship between Washington and Ankara was cold. Developments in Syria, trade tariffs, concerns about Turkey's proximity to Russia, and limiting arms cooperation alongside Washington's close ties to Kurdish groups were among the challenges that Trump created in the US relationship with Turkey.

According to the analysis above, however, the most important concern is that Trump and his advisers have no regard for the consequences of their policies. They do not think what are the consequences of abandoning the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, withdrawing from the nuclear deal with Iran, continuing to interfere in regional affairs and staying in Iraq.

All of the issues over Trump's 30-month presidency have led analysts to see as obscure the White House policy developments in the Middle East and even evaluate some of the Trump administration without a clear strategy for this geopolitical region. Analysts see Donald Trump's most striking aspect of Middle East policies as opposed to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Financial Times's website put it another way, writing about the uncertainty of Donald Trump's unveiling of real US policy in the Middle East. The newspaper cited recent developments in the region and noted that Iran's strategy is clear. In the context of responding to the White House's maximum pressure, Tehran says that if its interests are harmed, the interests of Washington's friends and allies will also suffer. Iran has shown that the pain of US policy and pressure is spreading, and it is affecting everyone in the region. In this view, if Iran fails to export oil, other producers and markets will also be in trouble.

According to the British newspaper, if Trump has learned one thing from his presence in the White House is that it has exacerbated the crisis. Trump's withdrawal from a nuclear deal with Iran, the region's only diplomatic achievement in a decade, was the wrong choice only because it was made by the former US president, the report said. Trump wants to show himself the master of bargaining who can achieve a better deal.

According to the above analysis, however, he ignored Iran's ability to absorb sanctions pressure. Trump also did not realize that Iran would take an offensive approach if felt it needed to defend itself. Iran's influence in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon is also a leverage that will increase the pressure on the US and its regional allies.

Some Trump associates, such as John Bolton, the ousted White House national security adviser, depicted the end game for Trump against Iran as Iran's collapse through sanctions or war. However, this estimate is by no means realistic. According to the Financial Times, Trump always sought to use the threat of war, not to wage war. His hypothesis is that Tehran will be forced to negotiate with increasing pressure.

The Financial Times insists that an uncontrolled conflict in the Middle East is not what Trump needs in the run-up to the presidential election.


Follow us on Twitter @IrnaEnglish

Your Comment

You are replying to: .
5 + 3 =