Most American presidents have dedicated a chapter in their diaries to their
role in resolving crises in the Middle East. President Barack Obama has two
books which will be released. Jeffrey Goldberg, who has long accompanied Obama,
is working on one of them.
President-elect Donald Trump also confronts many conflicts in the Middle East,
the number of which the U.S. has perhaps not known since the days of Dwight
Eisenhower during World War II. There are many wars and ongoing turmoil, so
will Trump adopt the policy of his predecessor, Obama, and refuse to manage
crises or will he resort to other proposals made by leaders of his Republican
parties, such as those suggested by Senator John McCain who calls for
intervening and not letting chaos and terrorism threaten the world and the
security of the U.S.? Current crises are the result of the collapse of the
international balance of power which was established after WWII and as a
result of the nuclear agreement with Iran.
When he was inaugurated eight years ago, Obama launched his era with
encouraging change in the Middle East but he changed his mind when the winds
of change blew and chose a seat among the audience. In 2009, when he delivered
two famous speeches in Istanbul and Cairo about openness and moderation,
demonstrations erupted in Tehran to protest against the flawed presidential
elections and calling for openness. The authorities in Tehran confronted these
protests with persecution and murder and the American administration did not
do anything – such as tighten sanctions or impose new ones to confront the
situation.
Two years later, uprisings erupted in Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Yemen. The
administration once again adopted a stance in support of change but then it
practiced the same policy of observing developments from afar. When the crises
worsened, the Obama administration chose to favor Islamic groups in Tunisia,
Egypt and Iraq, all at the expense of an aspiring civil society.
The president-elect may sit and watch the chaos like Obama did but the price
will only become higher and the threats will only expand. Wars and the
activity of terrorist organizations may increase and the humanitarian disaster
will worsen. The possible chaos that may erupt in Iraq threatens 10 million
people. It's also possible that millions more will be displaced from Syria, in
addition to the 12 million who are currently displaced. Chaos may expand and
reach stable areas. Developments have proven that the American policy of
isolation towards the Syrian crisis is erroneous and it has cost the US and
the world a lot.
The president-elect may sit and watch the chaos like Obama did but the price
will only become higher and the threats will only expand.
What's noticeable regarding the current wars in Syria, Yemen and part of Iraq
is that they have one thing in common and it is Iranian military intervention.
Iran's role has escalated as a result of ending the ''policy of containment''
which prevented the regime from expanding beyond its borders.
Consecutive American governments adopted this policy in response to Iran's
foreign terrorist activity which reached Europe and Latin America. However, as
a result of the nuclear agreement in favor of Iran, restraints on the latter's
foreign activities were cancelled. Instead of having Iranian celebrities who
play football or music, we have generals in the Revolutionary Guards taking
pictures as they participate in the fighting in conflict zones in Syria, Iraq
and Lebanon.
So will Trump's administration draw limits on Iranian chaos or will it
continue to adopt Obama's policy of isolationism? Is it possible to revive the
alliance of moderate countries with the US which used to include Gulf
countries, Egypt and Jordan, as it's been attributed to Trump's advisers? And
later, will it be possible to propose a collective project for the region to
stop chaos, restore stability and prevent regional intervention?
Does the president-elect desire to restore Iraq, a country in which change
cost the US 4,000 American troops and a trillion dollars? Washington is
expected to refuse Iran's interventions and to insist on Iraq's independence
and sovereignty so it can become a free state that does not submit to the
directions of religious clerics or the leadership of the Iranian Revolutionary
Guards.
However, why do we expect Trump to reform the region when he criticized the
invasion of Iraq? The reason lies in the significance of his country's higher
interests, including the ones related to economy and security. Iran, and not
Washington and certainly not Baghdad, is currently reaping the fruits of that
invasion. Supporting Libya's unity and stability will prevent the collapse of
North Africa, decrease threats in southern Europe and pave the way toward the
opening of huge economic markets.
During the past six years, Obama's government tried to ignore these crises and
the result is that threats were aggravated. The new administration cannot
continue to adopt the same ideas which led to the worst tragedies in the
region.
Al Rashed is the general manager of Al -Arabiya television. He is also the
former editor-in-chief of Asharq Al- Awsat, and the leading Arabic weekly
magazine, Al Majalla. He is also a senior Columnist in the daily newspapers of
Al Madina and Al Bilad. He is a US post-graduate degree in mass
communications. He has been a guest on many TV current affairs programs. He is
currently based in Dubai.
Add Comments