Trump’s Mideast plan is destined for failure
The banner Donald Trump gave his approach to the Middle East in his Riyadh speech, “principled realism,” has promise. Unfortunately, the approach itself does not. In fact, Trump propounded an approach that is neither principled nor realistic. It is as sure to fail as that of his two immediate predecessors, Barack Obama and George W. Bush. Indeed, American foreign policy in the Middle East can fairly be described as a failure going back to the 1950s.
Trump followed in Obama’s footsteps by making his inaugural foreign-policy outing an offer to the Muslim world of a new beginning. The natures of the new beginnings are very different, but both are rooted in a fundamental pretense. Trump put it this way: “This is not a battle between different faiths, different sects, or different civilizations.”
Now, it is certainly true that the essential dividing line in this “battle” is between those who aspire to commit mass murder and those who don’t.
That, however, isn’t the only dividing line and glossing over the others beclouds the development of strategies to thwart the aspiring mass murderers.
The United States is committed to pluralist, democratic capitalism. Trump was speaking to a room full of Sunni despots who neither practice nor believe in any of the three elements. In fact, pluralism, democracy and true entrepreneurial capitalism would threaten their rule. And their people will not be able to enjoy what the United States regards as fundamental rights unless the assembled despots either are deposed or become figureheads.
The Muslim world has not undergone an Enlightenment transition to pluralism and secular rule. The few hopeful signs are being extinguished. Turkey is becoming an autocracy. A governor in
There was some hope that Trump would disengage from the geopolitics of the Middle East. It appears that isn’t to be.
Indonesia who is Christian and ethnically Chinese was recently found guilty of blasphemy. And Tunisia, the only fruit of the Arab Spring, still walks a precipice over internal disorder and chaos.
Now, a realistic foreign policy could make alliances of convenience with Islamic despots against the jihadi mass murderers.
A principled foreign policy, however, would be clear-eyed and clear-headed about it. Trump was neither.
According to Trump, the fight against jihadi terrorism is “a battle between Good and Evil.” The evil could only be overcome “if the forces of good are united and strong.”
Trump, however, wasn’t speaking to a room filled with the forces of good. It was filled with tyrants of various sorts.
Trump then conflated the fight against primarily Sunni terrorism with the effort to contain the regional influence of Shiite Iran. This is precisely the muddling of vital distinctions the Sunni despots desperately want from the United States.
Iran’s support for regional militant groups that engage in terrorism is a problem. But those tend to have limited territorial ambitions. They aren’t the transnational terrorist groups, such as Islamic State and al-Qaida, that pose the greatest threat to the United States.
Engagement with Iran, as the Obama administration attempted, is probably futile so long as Ali Khamenei is supreme leader. He seems immovably opposed to détente with at least the United States.
That, however, doesn’t mean that the United States should enter into the Sunni-Shia competition for regional influence unreservedly and fully on the side of the Sunni despots, as Trump pledged to do, irrespective of how many U.S. arms they commit to buy.
That’s a dangerous, unprincipled dead end. The United States should be taking a more nuanced, nimble and distanced approach.
Finally, Trump conflates all of this with another attempt to midwife peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The mutuality of interest in containing and combating Iran has given Israel more currency with the Sunni despots.
But Trump will learn what a long line of other failed presidents before him have learned. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians won’t come until the Palestinian people truly want it and elect a government with a mandate to make it. That remains a distant prospect. There was some hope that Trump would disengage from the geopolitics of the Middle East. It appears that isn’t to be.
Which is unfortunate. The main lesson from more than a half century of failure is this: The geopolitics of the Middle East is a snake pit. The less time the United States spends in it the better.