Stone that was returned to Arbroath was not the original

THE Stone of Destiny in Edinburgh Castle may or may not be the one taken from Westminster Abbey by Ian Hamilton and co, assuming it was the one returned to Arbroath Abbey (Letters, January 12 & 14). What it surely is not is the Stone of Scone, on which the Kings of Scots were crowned.

This was a polished black basalt stone, engraved with symbols, as can be seen in some early depictions of Scottish coronations,

There is no way a lump of rough rock would have been used as the sacred Coronation stone.

The monks of Scone Abbey fobbed off Edward I with the current fake.

When he realised he had been duped, he returned two years later and ransacked the abbey trying to uncover the true stone.

It will be the archaeological find, in Scottish terms of this or any other century, if the true stone’s hiding place can be discovered. Willie Douglas, 252 Nether Auldhouse Road, Glasgow.

WHAT will Donald Trump’s Middle East policy look like? He has framed himself as an isolationist. During the election campaign he criticised Barack Obama’s entanglement in the region and suggested the United States would disengage if he were in power.

When it comes to US policy towards the Middle East we cannot rely too heavily on election promises or an incoming president’s previous record. America’s long-term Middle East policy has been shaped by a largely unchanging “grand strategy” while in the short-term it is altered by events on the ground.

Mr Obama famously began his presidency with positive overtures: in his 2009 Cairo speech he emphasised greater support for grassroots democracy movements, promised an active search for an IsraeliPalestinian settlement and a foreign policy more consistent with promoting human rights. After the Arab uprisings in 2011 and especially after Syria, the administration began pursuing a policy of realism and retreat.

Mr Trump has not been consistent in his isolationist rhetoric. A more reliable indication of his policies can be gauged from his appointments. Taking account of these, it is possible to identify the three most pressing issues likely to reflect the greatest departures from Obama’s policy.

* Syria: Mr Trump has promised an end to political or military support to the anti-Assad opposition. This would mark a significant shift in foreign policy, bearing in mind Hillary Clinton’s pro-rebel stance. At the same time, Mr Trump has promised a ramping-up of efforts to destroy Islamic State. These two policies bring the US far closer to Russia’s and even the Syrian regime’s stance. In spite of this, the Syrian opposition has said it welcomes a Trump presidency and looks forward to working with him, indicative of a more pragmatic approach in recognition of an unfavourable balance of power.

However, US influence on the Syrian conflict has already waned under the Obama administration, and it is questionable whether this shift in policy from the White House will have as strong a bearing on the war as it might have had four years ago.

The Persian Gulf: More provocatively, Mr Trump has said he would revoke the US-Iranian deal on nuclear weapons, causing alarm amongst Washington’s Middle East staff. Many view his selection of James Mattis as chief of staff as a symbol of his non-conciliatory approach to Iran. Mr Mattis has espoused a critical view of Iran but has also said withdrawal from the deal would not be in the US’s interests. This suggests the terms will be protected but this may be strained by inflammatory rhetoric from the White House, aggravating tensions in Iran between hardliners who resent compliance and reformers.

Israel-Palestine: Mr Trump has reiterated his support for the Netanyahu government after frosty relations between the latter and Mr Obama. The proposal to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Mr Trump’s endorsement of Benjamin Netanyahu’s increasingly hardline approach and lack of concern over Israeli settlement construction in Palestinian territories kiboshes any return to an IsraeliPalestinian peace deal. The embassy move stirs up one of the thorniest issues in the conflict, the international status of the holy city, and even the suggestion has inflamed tensions between Israelis and Palestinians.

What is the upshot of these impending policies? First, that Mr Trump does not have a clear, overarching policy on the Middle East. Secondly, the relatively undemonstrative reaction from many of the region’s leaders towards his victory suggests they are wary and weary of US engagement, are used to the inconsistencies of recent administrations and already have low expectations.

However, it is worth noting that, despite all the focus on Mr Trump, he is to a large extent constrained by the Washington machinery, even more so by the actions of other states. When speculating on future US policies towards the Middle East, one cannot do so in abstraction from the policies of other international actors.

In the last eight years, the pendulum has swung away from US hegemony in the Middle East as Russia but also the Gulf states have sought to fill the vacuum left by America’s gradual retreat. The US will have to contend with competing policies of its partners and enemies, much more so than it has in the past. Jasmine Gani is a lecturer in International Relations at the University of St Andrews and a director of the Centre for Syrian Studies.