Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

End Of Hope For Trump’s Middle East Policy

Is the U.S. heading into another Mideast war? While President Trump most likely would like to stop short of a direct military attack on Iran, events in the region have a habit of getting out of hand. At the very least, Washington is moving further away from any attempt to reconcile divergent interests in the region in favor of abetting others as they throw more gasoline onto the fires.

 

Lobelog

 

This past week could go down as the worst for the US role in the world since the misbegotten 2003 invasion of Iraq, whose tragic consequences still bedevil us. In both cases, the damage has been almost entirely self-inflicted, the result of abysmal judgment at the top of the US government, plus the failure of other institutions—Congress, the media—to do their proper jobs. The Trump administration kicked off round two of a trade war with China. Concerns escalated about the role of Russia in US elections and possible links to President Donald Trump. The president sustained attacks on his efforts to deescalate tensions with Moscow. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson departed from Washington, which he called a “very mean-spirited town.”

Most dramatically, Trump this week chose John Bolton to be National Security Advisor. Bolton was, briefly, a couldn’t-get-confirmed-by-the-Senate ambassador to the United Nations. This puts in place at the top of the government the most rigid ideologue ever to hold that position, a consistent advocate of the hardest of hard-right positions (especially in the Middle East), and a promoter of war in various parts of the world.

This appointment is not just an insult to the entire US national security profession. It also reduces the number of people in government who can save the president from blundering into one or more disasters with consequences potentially rivaling those in Iraq. But even White House Chief of Staff General John Kelly and Secretary of Defense General Jim Mattis share Bolton’s view of Iran as the key source of instability in the Middle East. Also, Senate willing, the Iran-as-Devil school will soon be strengthened by the current head of the CIA, Mike Pompeo, Trump’s nominee to replace Tillerson at the State Department. Pompeo, yet another military man in the Trump cabinet, has publicly opposed the Iran nuclear deal that cut off Teheran’s path to the bomb and has consistently advocated hard-line positions elsewhere in the world.

These changes to the national security team mean that it’s now impossible for the United States to disentangle itself, even partially, from the mess in the Middle East, however much that could be in our national interest. Indeed, it looks as though the Trump administration will be expanding the mess. Trump has to decide by May 12 whether to recertify that Iran is in compliance with the terms of the nuclear deal, as all US allies are pleading with him to do (it is in compliance, by all objective and non-US accounts). Bolton and Pompeo will be pushing him to pull out of the agreement. And the person representing the United States in Geneva talks with allies who are desperate to deflect Trump from destroying the Iran nuclear deal is a junior official with no senior-level experience in foreign affairs and whom no one believes speaks authoritatively for the U.S. president.

This changing of the guard from a hawkish to a superhawkish direction was compounded this week by the U.S. visit of the Saudi Arabian crown prince and effective ruler, Mohammad bin Salman (MbS). He came bearing major gifts in the form of hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of arms purchases from the United States, promises of a massive investment relationship, and of course flattery for Trump himself. MbS has also wooed those who want to believe that Saudi Arabia is no longer the leading sponsor of terrorism throughout the Islamic world and beyond (which it continues to be) and that it’s prepared to cozy up to Israel, given that both see Iran as enemy number one and care naught for the Palestinian people.

However, some of Israel’s friends in the US are beginning to fear that counting on the friendship and support of Saudi Arabia can be a fool’s bargain. Thus this week, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a strong supporter of Israel, expressed doubtsabout nuclear cooperation agreements with countries—meaning Saudi Arabia—that don’t “contain restrictions on the enrichment and reprocessing necessary for a nuclear weapon.” And The Washington Post, an accurate mirror of Israeli opinion, reported that “…even in Jerusalem, [Bolton’s] return stirred some concern….Israel is likely to be at the sharp-end of any conflict with Iran, something Bolton has repeatedly floated.”

Until Mattis intervened personally on Capitol Hill, the Senate was prepared to pass legislation to stop US military aid to Saudi Arabia in its thinly disguised (“when in doubt, blame Iran”) aggression in Yemen. According to key United Nations agencies, “The conflict in Yemen has created the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, a crisis which has engulfed the entire country.” Given what is happening in Syria and elsewhere in the region, that is saying something! As part of his pushback against a possible congressional cutoff of US support for the Saudi war effort, Mattis publicly challenged the visiting Saudi crown prince to “accelerate the peace process in Yemen.” Meanwhile, however, US support for Saudi military actions continues.

Does all this mean war with Iran? Trump most likely would like to stop short of a direct military attack as opposed to all other forms of pressure he can muster. Even MbS and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, champion fire-breather on the subject, probably don’t want to go as far as a major conflict with Iran because their countries, too, would suffer. But in the Middle East, things have a habit of getting out of hand. Certainly, even without another war, the United States is moving further away from any attempt to reconcile divergent interests in the region in favor of abetting others as they throw more gasoline onto the fires.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


Former Vice President Dick Cheney was a leading framer of the “global war on terror” and a staunch supporter of aggressive U.S. military action around the world.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share