Trump's Afghanistan Strategy is an Asia Strategy

In late August President Donald Trump recommitted US forces to Afghanistan, to defeat the Taliban and to help the US achieve military victory there as part of his South Asia strategy. But President Trump's strategy represents more than victory over the Taliban, and has implications even larger than just South Asia. President Trump's strategy in Afghanistan is an integral part of a successful US pivot towards Asia.

President Trump is using his strategy in Afghanistan to reshape US alliances in Asia. In President Trump's speech, rhetoric against Pakistan was made harsher and an invitation was extended for India to invest more fully in Afghanistan. The US has calculated that in Asia, India is an essential long-term ally and will thus receive the lion's share of benefits from Afghanistan at the expense of Pakistan. The US is turning the Afghan War into a proxy war between India and Pakistan, a proxy war that India is likely to invest in victory for.

As a result of this policy, US-Pakistani relations are deteriorating. This gives India the reassurance they need that they will be a highly prized US ally and will be able to commit long-term to the US over other geopolitical contenders, such as Russia. Pakistan, on the other hand, will be forced to rely more exclusively on China and Russia and, given Pakistani links to terrorism, Pakistan will taint Russian and Chinese reputations in Asia.

The geopolitical calculation of the Trump Administration is that together, the US and India are a powerhouse which can match growing Chinese influence. Victory in Afghanistan would see an enormous economic boost for India and the US, and would allow both countries to rely less on China for unearthing rare minerals. Estimates put the minerals in Afghanistan as worth trillions of dollars, and securing those resources with a government in Afghanistan friendly to India and the US would mean that India and the US would compete with China in the minerals' monopoly.

The South Asia strategy, together with harsher measures on North Korea and more open US-Taiwanese relations, sees a US that is pivoting away from quagmires in the Middle-East and towards Asia. In a stronger Indian-US alliance cemented in Afghanistan, China is finally faced with a worthy adversary.

Trump to ignite proxy war with China in Afghanistan

In the Presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised to be harsher on China. Today, President Trump's actions are beginning to match his campaign rhetoric.

More US pressure has been exerted on China from a number of fronts. First of these is North Korea, with President Trump pushing for President Xi Jinping to reel in its unstable neighbor. As well as this is increased relations between Taiwan and the US, largely unnoticed in the American media.

But perhaps the most serious challenge to China is President Trump's ambition to continue the Afghan War. The US has long backed the Afghan government, previously headed by President Hameed Kharzai and now headed by President Ashraf Ghani. China, on the other hand, backs Pakistan who, in turn, back the Taliban. And Al-Qaeda leader, Ayman Az-Zawahiri, pledges allegiance to the Taliban leader.

Trump's aim is to expose Chinese tacit support of terrorism in Afghanistan. China is a staunch ally of Pakistan, and Pakistan arms and gives safe haven to the Taliban. For Trump, exposing Chinese support for the Taliban would allow the US to monopolize on the minerals which lie at the heart of Afghanistan.

Over the last 15 years, US has been unable to win either Afghanistan or Iraq, and has also accrued enormous levels of debt. The Iraq War decreased support for America globally and distracted the US from the Afghan War. George W. Bush also increased government spending while increasing tax breaks for American workers, resulting in a 5.8 trillion dollar increase to the US national debt.

Under President Obama, relations between select allies was strained by several contradictory policies, such as support for the Arab Spring, the overthrow of Qaddafi, support to Syrian rebels and the Iran nuclear deal. Obama policies on Afghanistan and Iraq allowed the Taliban to resurge and ISIS to proclaim a Caliphate. And under Obama, the debt soared to even greater heights, an addition of a staggering 11 trillion dollars.

For Donald Trump, Afghanistan is more than just a terror safe haven needing to be eradicated. US influence internationally is waning; Chinese and Russian influence is growing. One way to sustain US influence internationally is by monopolizing on the minerals in Afghanistan, of which some estimates conclude are up to 3 trillion dollars in worth. But should the US fail to win the war, China would have total dominion over all major mineral reserves, and the US' status as a superpower may be challenged as never before.

For US strategy in Afghanistan, there are worrying signs from key members of President Trump's staff. Rex Tillerson, the Secretary of State, has stated that the US may not win on the battlefield, but neither will the Taliban, undermining Trump's rhetoric of winning in Afghanistan, and Trump's suggestion that the Taliban may not even want to negotiate. Both Tillerson and General Nicholson have stated they wish to push the Taliban to the negotiating table, a flawed strategy and counter to Trump's own Afghan policy speech.

In Afghanistan, President Trump wants to defeat the Taliban - and, by extension, Pakistan and China - which is why he has brought India into the forefront. India, like China, is an emerging superpower. Letting India have more influence in Afghanistan is more likely to achieve a lasting victory.

Since the Iraq War, the US has been unable to score many lasting victories in their foreign policy. Should the US lose the Afghan War, it would add to their long list of military disasters which have transpired over the last 14 years.

Trump laments failures in Afghanistan

According to a report by NBC news, Trump has been unwilling to sign off the new Afghanistan strategy because it does not represent a sizable enough shift from the Bush-Obama era:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-says-u-s-losing-afghan-war-tense-meeting-generals-n789006

He lamented bitterly, complaining that though US troops were fighting and dying there, China was making the most profit out of the conflict, while Trump continually called for the firing of General John Nicholson, in charge of the war in Afghanistan. He also complained about the use of NATO and the incompetency of the generals to win the war after 16 years. Amusingly, he compared the generals' strategies to a business proposal in a failing New York restaurant, and said that the veterans of the Afghan war had given him more sound advice than the generals had.

Trump is right to be critical of US policy in Afghanistan. Obama's strategy has been rightly called wanting to 'not lose the war' and including absurd policies like announcing surges and withdrawals simultaneously. At its height, 100,000 troops were in Afghanistan under Obama, but due to announcing their withdrawal at the same time, the Taliban just hid and waited them out. The only positive which happened under Obama in Afghanistan was the killing of Bin Laden in neighboring Pakistan.

Bush's strategy on Afghanistan was one of negligence. The first two years of war showed remarkable success against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, but this was all wasted by the Iraq War, which saw Afghanistan fall into the background. With ISIS almost defeated in Iraq and Syria, Trump will likely do the opposite: Iraq will fall to the background and Afghanistan will be brought to the foreground.

Trump's own ideas behind Afghanistan are remarkable. His ideas include taking control of the mineral reserves which bankroll the Taliban - while this would likely require a significant troop surge, the goal of securing the mineral reserves offers something tangible to both Afghan and US troops: economics.

What is paramount is that Trump needs to make a decision soon. Morale among Afghan troops is waning, the Taliban continues to win the war, and many Afghan war veterans are worried that their sacrifice will be in vain. Winning the Afghan War is crucial for stability in the Middle-East and for Trump's own credibility. Trump cannot afford another Vietnam.

Why a US-Russian conflict over Syria is unlikely

Trump has used military force against Bashar Al-Assad after the alleged chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun. And this is the basis from which to expect the US will not go to war with Russia over Syria.

When Trump struck the Syrian Government before - the US' first use of military on the Syrian Government in the entirety of the civil war - Russia responded by suspending the cooperation line between the US and Russia, which had been established months after Russia entered the conflict. The US, in turn, decided to send drones to bomb ISIS in north-western Syria, to avoid planes being shot down by Russian military. Eventually the crisis was resolved and the cooperation line restored.

More recently, the US has struck Iranian allies in Syria which encroached too close to US-backed forces, both the Free Syrian Army in the south of the country and the mainly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces. The US also shot down a Syrian aircraft, the first time the US shot down one such as this in the entirety of the Syrian Civil War.

Russia has, once again, suspended the cooperation line between the US and Russia. Even more drastic has been the Russian threat to shoot down any US aircraft found west of the Euphrates river - the city of Raqqa, thankfully, sits to the east of the Euphrates.

This recent rise in tensions has been compared to the Cuban Missile Crisis, the closest time then USSR and the United States reached a state of nuclear war. And experts fear that a large conflict may result from this rising of tensions in Syria.

But it is unlikely that the US will allow itself to be drawn into a conflict against Russia in Syria. The reason should be obvious: the best time to strike Russian and Syrian military forces was after Khan Sheikhoun, when Trump had the element of surprise.

Because Trump only struck the air base and not the Damascus palace, it is clear that Trump policy is not directed against regime change in Syria. It should be more obvious given Trump's statement after striking the Syrian airbase: "we are not going into Syria."

To be fair, the US will be directing future policy against Iranian influence in the Middle-East - but Syria is not the country at the forefront of Trump policy against Iran. The countries to be targeted by the Trump Administration to decrease Iranian influence include Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen, and perhaps the Kurds in Syria as well.

But unlikely - very unlikely - that Trump will use military force against Russia and Syria to oust Bashar Al-Assad.

Why Afghanistan is key to containing Iran

For more information:
https://www.dawn.com/news/1339411
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-afghanistan-mineral-reserves-235962


In Trump's search for containing Iran, one of the most viable options is Afghanistan.

In the campaign Trump talked about how the Iraq War knocked out a "block" in the Middle-East spheres of influence. A country with traditionally Sunni and secular leadership, Saddam Hussein under the Ba'ath party, was knocked out and replaced with Iranian dominance stretching from Tehran to Beirut unabated.

Now the areas in which Iranian dominance can be countered are scarcer. In Syria and Yemen, the two countries in which Saudi Arabia is waging proxy wars, the conflicts are unlikely to produce the results necessary to beat back Iran. Both sides chosen by Saudi Arabia - the Syrian rebels and the Hadi government - are exceedingly unpopular with the people of each nation and these proxy wars are, subsequently, doomed to fail.

As for Iraq, well, nobody is interested in regime change there to counter Iranian influence.

Afghanistan, however, has a small Shi'ite population and has enormous economic potential. Instead of engaging in proxy wars in Yemen or Syria, which destabilize the region, a US focus to strengthen Afghanistan against Iran would mean that a new "block" would emerge in Iraq's place.

The Trump Administration has even suggested that they will do such a thing. Jim Mattis, the Secretary of Defense, has suggested that the Afghan policy will be comprehensive and will include a regional approach, focusing on India, Pakistan, the whole South Asian area and "especially Iran." This suggests that the Afghan policy will include making sure that the government in Kabul has no reproachment with Iran and acts as a bulwark against growing Iranian influence.

However, such stabilizaton of Afghanistan would be insufficient to completely counter Iranian dominance in the Middle-East, but it would be a key starting point. Other options include making Iraq more neutral in the Sunni-Shi'ite proxy wars, increased relations between an anti-Iranian Afghanistan and Iraq and between Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

In any case, an anti-Iran Afghanistan would give many in Washington a renewed desire to pursue stability in Afghanistan. It would certainly go ways to containing Iranian influence and stop their meddling.

McMaster's Afghan War, and Trump's likely response to it

Trump's National Security Advisor, H. R. McMaster, has given Trump a new plan for Afghanistan. In it, McMaster suggests that 50,000 American troops should be deployed, the Afghani government should be strengthened and the Taliban should be "brought to the negotiating table."

50,000 American troops will not solve the Afghan debacle. On the one hand, American public support for the war is waning. On the other hand, an American troop surge could betray Trump's platform of "America First" by getting bogged down in Afghanistan with no end in sight.

It is more likely that Trump will take the concept - 50,000 troops - and apply it to NATO, making Afghanistan a NATO project rather than an American one. As stated in previous articles, this would reinforce Trump's stance on making NATO directed towards radical Islamic terrorism rather than towards Russia. At the same time, with Russia eyeing Afghanistan closely on the side of the Taliban, NATO partners could be convinced that a show of force in Afghanistan is actually a show of force against Russia anyway.

While the Afghani government should be strengthened, this strengthening should not be through rebuilding infrastructure that the Taliban will just knock down. A more sensible way to provide support to the government is by wresting back control of the different resources from the Taliban, which on the one hand deprive the Taliban of these resources and on the other hand provide opportunity for the Afghan government to be more independent of foreign aid.

Bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table is the worst idea of all. Al-Qaeda's leader pledges allegiance to the leader of the Taliban. Taliban and Al-Qaeda are one and the same. Ignoring this fact will ensure the Afghan War is never won.

The only solution for Afghanistan is in the complete and utter destruction of the Taliban. Trump has shown admiration for Russia's fight against ISIS - a similar campaign of annihilation against the Taliban is the only way to bring peace to Afghanistan.

Trump staying out of Libya!

For more information, see here:


https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/2017/04/20/trump-no-role-for-u-s-in-libya-but-will-fight-isis-in-iraq-or-libya-or-anywhere-else/


It looks like Trump is keeping to his campaign promise of getting America out of the "nation-building business," and staying out of Libya!

This is fantastic news. When pressed by the Italian Prime Minister, Trump stated that America had "enough responsibilities" without adding Libya to the list. He also stated that he hoped he would be able to focus on domestic US policy once ISIS was defeated.

It is not only fantastic because it is great policy - it is policy I predicted in earlier posts, such as my post, "why American allies can expect no help from Libya."

http://jwaveruspolitics.blogspot.com.au/2017/01/why-american-allies-can-expect-no-help.html

It also signals that while Trump is going to talk the talk with regards to Bashar Al-Assad, there is every possibility that he won't walk the walk and militarily push for the removal of Assad. If his focus really is on ISIS in Syria and then return to American domestic policy, then Trump is likely to leave Assad in power without a military confrontation.

Trump's Middle-East: an April Update

Trump's Middle-East is continuing to take shape.

An unprecedented airstrike in Syria; deteriorated Russian-US relations; "Mother of All Bombs in Afghanistan"; the Yemen Question still unanswered.

There's a lot to talk about.

First, the unprecedented airstrike in Syria was unexpected, unpredictable and won Trump enormous support from long-time allies such as Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, while damaging relations with Russia. But while it represents a shift in strategy, the priority for the US remains the destruction of ISIS in Syria and, consequently, Trump will be forced to strengthen the ruling Assad Government.

However, I doubt - highly - that Rex Tillerson, the American Secretary of State, will succeed in ousting Bashar Al-Assad from Syria, either through negotiations with Russia or through military conflict. The US' military has no appetite for world war 3 with Russia over Syria, nor for supporting Syrian rebels, so should Russians say, "Assad will stay," there would be little America would do, save protest and add sanctions to Syria and to Russia.

Plus, Russia has suffered a string of humiliations: Ukraine and Libya are chief among them from the Obama years. Keeping Assad in power would be Russia putting dirt in America's eye for humiliating them and declining their influence. And Trump - with his military behind him - would be unwilling to wage war over Syria.

The unleashed "Mother of All Bombs" in Afghanistan serves as another lesson of unpredictability from the Trump Administration. Apparently the operation was against an ISIS network of tunnels and was successful, killing dozens of militants and no civilians. This serves to tell the American people: the Afghan war will grind on - certainly to defeat ISIS.

But it is likely that Trump will want to win the Afghan War - against the Taliban - during his Presidency. It has been going for over 15 years - if Trump wins the Afghan War, then that will go down in his legacy. I sincerely believe he will escalate the Afghan conflict to enable it to reach its conclusion before engaging in either Libya or Yemen.

Like Obama, Trump has shown reluctance to get involved in Libya. There is simply not enough there for them. Russia has taken the opportunity to fill the void, and Trump has been silent, largely because he - silently - supports Russian intervention there.

The reason for this is that the Egyptian President, Abdul Feteh es-Sisi, is a staunch ally of Haftar Al-Khalifa, the Libyan strongman who Russia supports. If Trump went against Russia, it would be against Haftar Al-Khalida and against Egypt - a cold shoulder from Trump as he received from Obama, which Trump does not want for Egypt.

Truly, Trump has struck an ingenious chord by bombing Syria: it blows the "Russian-supported Trump" narrative out of the water, yet also lets Russia do what they like in Libya without blow back from the US, because the west is too busy saber-rattling over Syria!

In Yemen, the question of increased military intervention is still unanswered. Will Trump escalate against the Houthi rebels? Should he do it, it would be the biggest error of his presidency thus far. As I have detailed in other posts, the northern Yemeni tribes allied to the Houthis would sooner ally to Al-Qaeda than to President Hadi. Trump would be strengthening Al-Qaeda by escalating the war against the Houthis.

In Iraq, things are looking like they are heading in the right direction. Mosul is close to completely liberated - the trick for Trump will be stabilizing Iraq, which is probably Trump's most difficult Middle-East challenge. But I have no complaints about Trump's intention to stay in Iraq indefinitely, as that will encourage him to leave other conflicts alone at a faster rate - like Syria, Yemen and Libya - and encourage Trump to win the Afghan War.

Such is Trump's Middle-East thus far. Time will tell where it will end up.

The Yemen Question

Unlike Obama, Trump has escalated the conflict in Yemen against Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The real question is, will Trump escalate the war to include against the Houthis in Hodeida?

No. I do not believe he will. And if he does, Trump will not bring an end to the wars of the Middle-East. His decision in regards to the Houthis, therefore, is a critical one. If he escalates the war, he will show that he is a war-monger. If he does not escalate the war, he will show the American people that he wants America out of the endless cycle of wars and he will be practically guaranteed a second Presidential term.

The question therein lies: how can Trump defeat Iran without engaging in a costly proxy war in Yemen? The answer is two-fold: Iraq and Afghanistan.

I do believe it to be far more likely that Trump will continue the Afghan War than escalate the Yemen War. Should Trump strengthen Afghanistan as a sovereign, independent country, it would certainly act as a bulwark on Iranian influence as Saddam Hussein's Iraq used to. Afghanistan has enormous economic potential - should that be unleashed, Afghanistan could become a dominant power in the Middle-East, and that to limit Iranian influence.

On the other hand, withdrawal from Afghanistan would guarantee that tensions between the Taliban and Iran would be exacerbated, and this could spill over into all-out conflict, resulting in the annexation of Afghanistan to Iran. That would be detrimental to the region and to American interest.

As for Iraq, this will be discussed in more detail in another post. Suffice to say there is considerable difference between the Shi'ites in Iraq and those in Iran, though both adhere to twelver Shi'ism. Should the Iraq brand of Shi'ism be funded to the exclusion of Iranian Shi'ism, not only in Iraq but in the Gulf, Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen, then Iran's influence would be greatly reduced.

Trump is unlikely to see Yemen as pressing an issue as ISIS in Iraq and Syria, or as the Taliban is in Afghanistan. I was right about Iran - am I right about Yemen? Time will tell.

Trump's Middle-East - March Update

How does Trump's foreign policy look 2 months since his inauguration?

Clearly, a lot is happening in the Middle-East, and a lot of it is related to Trump's action and inaction. In Syria, the battle against ISIS is clearly defined and not sidetracked by a war on the Syrian Government, as it was under Obama. In Iraq, Trump is capitalizing on Obama's success in his 'degrade, defeat and destroy ISIL' campaign, escalating the battle for Mosul and meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi.

In Iraq, Trump is set to stay in the country to make sure on the one hand, that the ISIS threat does not return, and on the other, make sure Iranian influence is quelled within the country. Destroying Iranian influence in Iraq can be done - all Iraq and America need to do is:

1) embrace Iraqi nationalism, and
2) fund Iraqi Shi'ism extensively

Embracing Iraqi nationalism is something which can only be done with a strong economy, government and army. Trump seems to be entirely aware of these in Iraq, with a focus on trying to give Iraqi Sunnis more power in the government, wanting to increase oil exports and increase counter-terrorism intelligence.

On the other hand, there is a big difference between Iraqi and Iranian Shi'ism. If Trump were to encourage funding of Iraqi Shi'ism to spread to other Shi'ite areas, such as Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, the Gulf states and even Iran, Iranian influence in the region would drastically recede. This would benefit the Middle-East enormously and would be one powerful way for Trump to use smart tactics to decrease Iran's appeal.

In Syria, Trump's target to 'degrade, defeat and destroy ISIS' seems set to work, and this primarily because he has dropped Obama's policy of "Assad must go." Trump withdrawing support for the Syrian rebels has allowed Assad to focus on uprooting ISIS from Syria. Assad has launched an incredibly powerful campaign against ISIS in the Aleppo countryside; Syrian Government sights are now set on the oil fields in Homs and Deir Ez-Zor, with the ultimate target the besieged Deir Ez-Zor city. Should Assad liberate all of this territory, Syria will remain a whole country and not fragment.

Trump's use of the Syrian Kurds in Raqqa does cause concern for Turkey, but is an appropriate middle ground between the Syrian Government and American forces. After the destruction of ISIS from Syria, America is very likely to withdraw and let Russia negotiate a deal between the Syrian Government and their Kurdish counterparts.

Trump's inaction in Afghanistan is actually related to his accelerated action in Syria. Trump realizes that America can only do so much at once - he seems set to end the campaign in Syria before focusing on Afghanistan, and until then only providing military necessity for Afghanistan.

While short-term this will infuriate the Afghan government, long-term it stands to benefit both America and Afghanistan. When the campaign in Syria is dealt with and America has withdrawn, the Trump Administration will put focus on and give a high level of attention to finishing the war in Afghanistan, including through strong-man politics, Afghan border security, tougher stance on the Taliban, increased trade between Afghanistan and America, and, for Afghan stability, increased tri-relations between Afghanistan, America and India. To quell Iranian influence, rather than pursuing regime change in Syria, Trump is likely to pursue a strong, stable Sunni ally in Afghanistan.

In Libya, Trump is leaving it alone, letting Europe and Russia sort out their differences there, which is likely to end with Haftar Al-Khalifa gaining more Russian support in battling for control of the entire country. Europe is unlikely to provide a better alternative, meaning Libya will stabilize with Haftar, backed by Russia and Egypt, without Trump having to lift a finger.

By far Trump's greatest foreign policy challenge is Saudi Arabia's war on Yemen. Currently the Trump Administration is reviewing their strategy in Yemen and considering escalating the war in Yemen against the Houthis to quell Iranian influence there.

Should Trump see the treasure of Iraqi Shi'ism for what it is, I do not think he will support military intervention against the Houthis in Yemen. It is better for America - by far - if Saudi Arabia and her coalition fight this Yemen War on their own, while the Trump Administration targets Al-Qaeda extensively, as they have been doing since taking office. Meanwhile, should the Houthis gain control of the entirety of Yemen - which is the likely outcome of such a war should America not intervene - Iraqi Shi'ism could be funded there to decrease the Iranian influence in Yemen.

Should Trump decide not to intervene against the Houthis in Yemen, he shall truly be able to get America out of the endless cycle of wars. Should Trump allow Russia to control Libya, this will help Russian-American relations considerably. Should Trump withdraw from Syria after defeating ISIS, this will increase his appeal in America.

Should Trump win the Afghan and Iraq Wars, he will go down in history as one of America's great Presidents.

the Afghanistan question

Trump is currently assessing whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan in an attempt to break the stalemate that has been hanging over the country, between government forces and the Taliban.

Unlike Obama, Trump will soon have his own vision for Afghanistan, one that he will likely convince the American people is entirely necessary.

Afghanistan is an incredibly important ally in the war on terror - before Haider Al-Abadi became Prime Minister of Iraq, Afghanistan was probably America's most important regional ally in the war on terror. What Trump needs to convince the American people is that America will not be in Afghanistan forever, there is a vision and there is the possibility of victory.

As Trump well knows, the only way to get the Middle-East stable at this critical juncture is for dictators to return to the region. His views on Syria have guaranteed Bashar Al-Assad, the strongman of Damascus, will remain in power and stabilize the country. His views on Russia give an increasing likelihood for Haftar Al-Khalifa, a strongman in Libya, to control the entire country.

Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is a better place to start for allowing a strongman to gain control. If the Trump Administration can force Ashraf Ghani to have a dictatorship dedicated to him in Afghanistan, there is a real chance that the country will have something to fight for against the Taliban.

The other thing which needs dealing with is the Afghani-Pakistani border. If Trump can direct American resources to bombing the Taliban as it moves from Pakistan into Afghanistan, the threat will become much smaller.

The wild card in this fight is NATO. Trump could ask NATO allies to contribute more substantially to the war effort in Afghanistan to offset enormous American expenditure there. This would be a win for Trump on both NATO and the Afghan War.

One thing that is for sure: if things continue as they did under Obama, Afghanistan will be America's next Vietnam War.

Trump's attitude to Iraq and Syria kindles hope

Trump is showing the marks of a great leader of the world in foreign policy.

There are sizable changes occurring in the battle against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. In Syria, Syrian Kurds are being given more prominence by the Trump Administration in defeating ISIS, yet are also giving territory back to Bashar Al-Assad to protect themselves from Turkey. The Trump Administration's analysis that the Syrian Kurds are the better middle ground between Assad and America is spot-on.

America is also assisting the Syrian Government - via airstrikes - in retaking territory from ISIS. This occurred in Palmyra, which was lost after Obama had a hissy-fit about Assad regaining Aleppo, refusing to target ISIS returning to Palmyra. It is not too hard to see that Assad, with the help of Russian and American airstrikes, will soon be pushing east towards the embattled Deir Ez-Zor city, a city under siege by ISIS for the past 2 years, which is in desperate need of liberation.

Keeping Turkish involvement to a minimum means that Syria will be less complex by the conclusion of the Syrian War. It will mean that nearly all previous Syrian territory held by Turkey - as well as all Syrian Arab territory currently held by the Kurds - will be handed back to Bashar Al-Assad, with the reward to the Kurds being semi-autonomy.

In Iraq, a mainly Sunni Arab offensive is about to get underway against the ISIS stronghold of Hawija, one of ISIS' last strongholds in the country. This shows a willingness on the side of the Abadi government to give Sunni Arabs more prominence in military and political matters, which is a great sign that tensions between Sunni and Shi'ite Iraqi Arabs will be defused. It's not too hard to see that this was probably encouraged by the Trump Administration.

Trump also removed Iraq from the revised travel ban, which in the words of the spokesperson for the Iraqi foreign minister,

“emboldens the strategic alliance between Baghdad and Washington in several fields, most importantly countering terrorism.”

This is terrific news. Trump has stuck to his promise of offering Iraq strong and firm support, while not alienating Iraq into becoming more of a puppet state of Iran.

With Iraq set to get Mosul, Hawija and western Anbar province from ISIS' filthy hands, there are still enormous challenges ahead for the country. Unlike Syria, which has a strong government which will stabilize the country, much of Iraq is still in chaos. Sadly, an Arab-Kurdish war may begin shortly after Iraq is liberated from ISIS' grip.

Trump is likely to remain neutral in such a fight, as a smaller Iraq (the likely outcome of the war) stands to weaken Iran's influence in the region. On the one hand, the Kurdish region of Iraq would have complete independence from Baghdad. On the other hand, losing Kurdistan would force the remnants of Iraq - the Sunni and Shi'ite Arab regions - to come together in unity behind a stronger government, to prevent Iraq from fracturing further.

Whether Trump will flood Iraq with more American boots on the ground as before is unclear. What is clear is that both Iraq and Syria have more hope ahead of them than since the beginning of the Syrian Civil War and withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

Trump's new plan for defeating ISIS

What will Trump do to defeat ISIS?

Trump has stated that he would give the military 30 days for constructing a new, more effective plan to completely degrade, defeat and destroy ISIS. While Obama's ISIS plan has worked in Iraq, in Syria it has left the country worse off than ever, forcing Russia to step in to save the Syrian Government in 2015.

Trump is expected to be handed that plan today. I would like to make some predictions, then I will release another post to confirm whether I was on target or not:

1) In Iraq, Obama's strategy will be implemented, only on a grander scale. Iraqi forces will receive enormous amounts of air power to drive ISIS out of western Mosul, Hawija and western Anbar province. Obama's strategy has largely worked - Trump is unlikely to undo it, only add to it.

2) In Syria, Trump will work with Turkey against common objectives. Trump will not fund the Kurds inasmuch as he will work with the Turkish military. He will use the Turkish military to push through ISIS-held territory, preventing the Kurds from advancing any further onto Raqqa or anywhere else. From the Syrian territory held by Turkey, safe zones will be implemented.

However, by that same token, Trump will not allow the Turks to take any of the Syrian Kurdish territory from them. Trump will force Turkey to target ISIS territory, not Kurdish territory, but do so to prevent the Kurds from gaining any more territory. This middle ground strategy would mean that neither side is fully satisfied, benefiting Trump diplomatically.

3) Trump will work for airstrikes with Russia. One of Trump's hopes is that the burden of obliterating ISIS will fall not only on the back of the US, but also on the back of the Russians. Turkey and Russia have already been doing joint airstrikes against ISIS; it would not be hard militarily for America to follow Turkey's example under Trump - though, diplomatically, it would be a nightmare.

4) Trump will put pressure on Bashar Al-Assad to fight ISIS first and save the rebels in Idlib for later. Trump wants to use Assad as a battering ram on ISIS (which is interesting, because Obama did the exact opposite: he used ISIS as a battering ram on Assad from 2014 - 2016!)

Trump wants Assad's first priority on the complete and utter destruction of ISIS before defeating the other rebels in Syria. With Russian and Turkish pressure for the same, and with Assad controlling Aleppo, it is not hard to see that Assad would swing his army east rather than north-west.


Time will tell how close to the mark I was.

Trump's Middle-East - February 2017 Update

Now that we have seen the last two and a half weeks of Trump's Middle-East, I thought I would make some observations.

In Syria, Trump has kept his word that he would not try and overthrow Assad, who in his words was "a bad guy, but there might be worse guys after him... We don't even know who we're funding." However, he has not withdrawn and does not seem keen on withdrawing from the Syrian conflict immediately, but rather in escalating it on the side of Russia. His aim is to pin American coalition, Russian, Iranian and Syria forces against ISIS as priority number one. He plans to completely destroy ISIS in Syria before withdrawing from the conflict.

The speedy agreement by the Gulf countries in funding safe zones in Syria is a token of good will to the new President by the Gulf countries, and also reveals a deep sense of dread that they may be replaced as top allies in the Middle-East.

In Iraq, Trump has caused some diplomatic difficulties by his Muslim ban from 7 nations, including Iraq. After becoming President, he has also created difficulties by saying that America would "take their oil", without providing Iraq with appropriate context.

However, Trump has pledged that Iraq is an important partner to the US and that it will receive strong, firm support. Yet this has not meant that previous abuses of the Iraqi-American relationship will be tolerated by Trump. He has in a tweet said that "Iran is continuing to take over Iraq... Obvious long ago!" which suggests Trump wants Abadi to curb Iranian influence in the country. Abadi has been responding appropriately to diplomatic tensions between the American and Iranian powers in the country and has so far fared well under Trump from Iraq's perspective.

It seems Trump is getting the ugly side of the Iraqi-American relationship out of the way before focusing on building the relationship in a way that will increase stability in the region. Trump is expected to provide explosive power to the Iraqi fight against ISIS, and will also likely stabilize Iraq through increasing their oil productions, to replace an over-dependence by the West on Saudi and Iranian oil.

With Iran, Trump has been using the confines of the Iran Nuclear Deal as a basis from which to put sanctions back on the theocratic regime. When ballistic missiles were tested by Iran, the Trump Administration immediately put Iran 'on notice.' When Iranians mocked the Administration, the response was American sanctions.

This has undoubtedly shown Iran up. With them likely to keep their partners in Syria and Hezbollah under the Trump Administration, Iran is unlikely to continue to push America under Trump, unlike under Obama.

In Libya, Trump has shown a willingness to let Russia handle the conflict. Together with letting President Bashar Al-Assad stay in Syria, these tokens of goodwill to Russia will ease American expenditure in the region, while also increasing the benefits of stronger American-Russian relations. Libya, like Syria, will stabilize under efforts by Russia, which is a great deal of good for the region as a whole.

In Yemen, nothing has changed as substantially. While handing Syria and Libya over to Russia, Trump is keen to be seen helping his Saudi allies in their murderous assault on the Yemeni people, under the pretext of "but Iran," and this despite the fact the Houthis are largely waging war independent of Iran, and are actually a stabilizing factor in Yemen. Yemen is so far Trump's most disappointing foreign policy.

In Afghanistan, Trump's next step is largely unknown. Long-term, I expect Trump will hand over Afghanistan to a Sunni dictator, stabilizing the country, upsetting Pakistan, China and Iran while pleasing India. However, Afghanistan is a less pressing issue for Trump than ISIS in Syria and Iraq, so he will undoubtedly wait until ISIS is defeated and Iraq and Syria are stabilized before driving more forcefully into Afghanistan.

Will Trump do an Iran War?

Will Trump do an Iran War?

Probably not.

Iran is an Islamic theocracy that is trying to build a nuclear weapon. They have widespread support in the Middle-East as 'sticking it to America,' especially in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and Yemen.

But there are areas in which Trump and Iran have the same goals, which is why Trump is unlikely to do an Iran War. One such area is Syria. In Syria, Bashar Al-Assad is heavily backed by Lebanese Hezbollah - supported by Iran - factions of Hamas - also supported by Iran - and Iran has sent Iraqi and Afghani Shi'ite militias to fight for Bashar Al-Assad.

If Assad fell from power, ISIS would fill the vacuum, cause genocides of Syrian minorities and Israel would be fighting ISIS on the Israeli-Syrian border.

With Trump vowing to 'get along well with Putin,' it is unlikely Trump would wage war with Iran while Iran is contributing to a solution in Syria.

In Iraq, the situation is more dire and more complex. Many say that it was American intervention in the Iraq War which gave Iraq the instability it now has. This is not entirely true. What is more accurate is that America and Iran are equally responsible for near irreparable damage to the country. Yes, you got it - Iran has caused a fountain of instability in Iraq and shares responsibility for the rise of ISIS there. This is because Iran invaded Iraq at the same time America did in 2003.

What is more likely than Trump invading Iran would be a second invasion of - yes, that's right - Iraq, to expel Iranian influence from it. Such a task would be enormous (though not as enormous as attacking Iran) though not impossible, and might help give Trump an alternative to Saudi Arabia as top Arab ally in the Middle-East.

This second invasion would only occur after Trump has handed over Syria to Russia and Iran, and after ISIS is completely destroyed in Iraq. He would probably use intervention as a pretext for bringing a voice back to the Sunni Arabs of Iraq.

It is still early days, but I doubt that the escalation between America and Iran will go beyond sanctions on Iran and another war to stabilize Iraq. But even a second war on Iraq from Trump is not a guarantee - only a more likely scenario than an Iran War.

Why American allies can expect no help in Libya

Trump has vowed to get out of the 'nation-building business' and 'focus on stability.' He has also vowed not only an alliance but a friendship with Egyptian President Sisi.

And Sisi is working with Russia towards a solution in Libya.

Trump waging a war on behalf of the Tripoli-based government - which has links to the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda - to defend against Russian and Egyptian aggression just simply is not going to happen.

There is a great deal of fear-mongering from Europe regarding Libya. They see that the migrant crisis is increasing not only from Syria, but also - perhaps to an even greater extent - from Libya. Libya has become a hotbed for not only terrorism, but also for refugee trafficking. But they are even more terrified that Russia will end up with a more sizable Mediterranean presence through consolidating power in both Syria and Libya.

The 'Obama Doctrine,' criticized as 'leading from behind,' has been a process of moving other nation actors into America's place, to make sure that America doesn't have to bear as much of the cost. This doctrine will perhaps be most well-known with Obama refusing to intervene to overthrow the Syrian government. The Obama doctrine, in this moment, saved the Middle-East.

In 2011 however, it was Obama's hope that Europe would step into Libya and help solve the crisis. But they didn't, and the opportunity has now passed to Russia, the only superpower willing to get involved in Libya.

So for Europe to cry wolf and want Trump to intervene in Libya against Russia and Egypt is outrageous. He will not do it - it is counter to American regional interest.

Russia has flashed warning signals at America, eyeing influence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, America has not intervened as extensively in Libya, so there is less shame in letting Russia solve the conflict. Trump is likely to use both Syria and Libya as piecemeal offerings to keep the Russian bear from eyeing influence in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Regarding Libya, the train has left. Europe missed their opportunity. Europe will not share in the spoils of Libya, because only Russia and Egypt are prepared to face the conflict with a clear vision. Europe knows if they went into Libya themselves, against Russia and Egypt, they would get economically drained without fixing the conflict, something they definitely do not wish for right now.

Russia of course benefits from Obama and Trump's lack of desire to intervene in Libya. This also, ironically, benefits Europe, because Russia will be spending their own finances and military strength on solving the refugee crises originating from Syria and Libya.

For Russia to end up with 2 sizable military bases in the Mediterranean - one in Syria and the other in Libya - will of course cause a lot of upset in Europe. But it will undoubtedly appease Russia - they will be seen for the superpower they really are.

Trump's Afghan War

This article is an analysis on what Trump's likely policy is regarding Afghanistan. For more information, please follow the link below:

http://2016.presidential-candidates.org/Trump/?on=afghanistan

Trump's Afghanistan policy, like his Iraq and Libya policies, have evolved. For example, at first Trump was unsure about whether or not the Iraq War was a good idea. When asked if he supported the Iraq War in 2002, he said, "I guess so..." But by 2004, everyone could see the Iraq War was a bad idea, especially Trump. By 2016, Trump championed being anti-Iraq War.

As another example, in 2011 Trump praised the overthrow of Libyan President Gidaffi. Now Trump sharply criticizes the decision as Libya is now a breeding ground for ISIS.


Short-term, Trump is unlikely to make a sizable difference in Afghanistan policy. His first priority is in destroying ISIS and seeing Iraq, Syria and Libya stabilize. I have analysed these conflicts in other articles, but in brief, I see it likely that Trump will increase oil trade relations between Iraq and the West to stabilize Iraq, and is also likely to hand over the Syrian and Libyan conflicts to Russia.

However, Afghanistan, unlike Syria and Libya, cannot simply be handed over to another foreign power to be dealt with. Such a move would trivialize the losses America has experienced there - militarily, politically and economically - and cause Trump to lose support from the military industrial complex. In addition, Russia has shown interest in both Afghanistan and Iraq, which is why it seems more likely that he will not only hand Syria but also Libya over to Putin - giving Russia more definite Arab allies means Trump would be less challenged over Afghanistan and Iraq.

The secret to the Afghan War lies in another country: Pakistan. Pakistan has lied to the United States about continued support for the Taliban and is also receiving huge amounts of money from the US. If Pakistani support for the Taliban continues, Trump would likely threaten to stop providing financial aid unless they stop.

Many of America's problems are tied together. Coupled with the Pakistan problem is the China problem - why I mention it here will make more sense in the next paragraph. China has been ripping America off through unfair trade agreements - Trump's criticism of the 'One China' policy means Trump is not afraid of China, nor of losing her as an exporter of goods to the United States. In fact, Trump and America might even gain from losing Chinese imports.

This is an important point, because without Chinese trade, the US needs another superpower to trade goods with. Enter India.

India is part of Trump's solution to Afghanistan. Regarding the Afghan War, Obama began to distance America from Pakistan in favour of assistance from India - this is likely to continue at a faster rate. A strengthening of Indian-Afghani relations would of course benefit Afghanistan in their fight on the Taliban. India and America have mutual interests in Afghanistan. India and America also have mutual benefits in trading with each other, and this would only be strengthened by combined efforts in Afghanistan.

Unlike Obama and George W. Bush, Trump is likely to lay out in concrete terms what he hopes to accomplish in Afghanistan. He is likely to support the complete eradication of the Taliban from Afghanistan. He is also likely to allow either the current leader of Afghanistan, Ashraf Ghani - or another future leader - to remain in power indefinitely as a dictator. Trump sees it is more important for Afghanistan to stabilize than for it to have democracy.

Coupled with these policies is an upping of trade between Afghanistan and the United States, to help both economies. This would help Afghanistan recover economically from fighting war for so long.

Of course these solutions create problems. One such problem is that Pakistan may feel alienated from the US and ally more closely with China. However, such an alliance benefits Trump more than damages him; Pakistan is an ally which has been abusing its relationship with America; China, though not an American ally, has also been abusing its relationship with the US. Putting the two together helps America keep its enemies in one basket.

Another possibility is that the remnants of the Taliban will regroup in Pakistan and ignite a civil war in the country. This would cause untold suffering for the Pakistani Christians and cause a refugee crisis. However, again, this is better than the alternative, which is a continued growth in Taliban power and a continued Pakistani support for perpetrators of 9-11.

On the other hand, should civil war break out in Pakistan, refugees could flee to India and Afghanistan, putting geopolitics in Trump's favour. China would also be forced to intervene in Pakistan, tying them up in a conflict that would weaken them.

If Trump were to solve the Afghan War in this manner, as it seems likely he will, he would have my support. It would cause problems, but on the whole, it would cause sizable defeats for terrorism in the war on terror.

Which conflicts will Trump continue?

In this article we will be examining which conflicts Trump will be set to continue into the foreseeable future.


1) Iraq

Iraq is first. With Trump pledging, 'strong and firm support' to the Abadi government, expect the Iraqi half of the war on ISIS to be Trump's top priority in the Middle-East.

Of course the American military could knock out ISIS in Iraq in no time at all. Yet this would not solve the underpinning eco-political problems in the country which gave rise to ISIS in the first place. Should Trump manage to solve those, with upping and protecting Iraqi oil exports; giving Iraqis more of the oil market at the expense of Iran and Saudi Arabia; allowing Sunni Iraqis and Shi'ite Iraqis to feel as one people - then the crisis would be over in Iraq and it would return to stability.


2) Afghanistan

Trump's comments in 2012 and 2013 suggest being in favour of withdrawing from Afghanistan.

However, much has changed since then. Obama has since withdrawn from Iraq in 2011, only to return there in 2014 barely 3 years later. Not only so, but Russia has expressed interest in Afghanistan. Both of these are reasons why Trump may have changed his mind in the interim.

More likely than immediate withdrawal is, after ISIS is dealt with in Iraq and Syria, a harsh crackdown on the Taliban in Afghanistan, which would also mean confronting Pakistan's role in funding and supporting the Taliban. Trump might even leverage finances sent by America to Pakistan in order for them to stop supporting the Taliban and get tougher on their own Pakistan-Afghani border.

Failure to comply could have serious financial repercussions for the Pakistani government. Alternatively, a serious Taliban crackdown in Afghanistan by the Trump Administration could cause instability to increase in Pakistan, as Pakistanis would perceive it a sphere of influence lost to India. It might even force Pakistan to stronger relations with China, as Trump would have no desire to get involved in a civil war resulting from the destruction of Taliban in Afghanistan and subsequent regroup in Pakistan.

This would have serious repercussions for Christians in Pakistan. Perhaps Trump would then use American influence in both Afghanistan and India to provide refugee camps exclusively for Pakistani Christians, to give them refuge from the Pakistani Taliban; perhaps they might even resettle en-masse in India and Afghanistan.

The main problem for the Afghani government is in its corruption. If its corruption disappeared, the Afghan half of the Taliban could disappear too. The only way to effectively do that would be to 1) up the economy, which the Trump Administration has suggested it is keen to do, and 2) work on a 'strong man' government.

Since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, America has lacked an anti-Iranian ally in the region who is able to both push back on Iranian influence and not fund terrorism. Should Trump view Afghanistan through that lenses - which I believe likely - Trump would prioritize Afghanistan higher than other conflicts.



In my opinion, Trump is more likely to get out of Syria, Libya and Yemen than out of Afghanistan, as Afghanistan is an American invested interest in central Asia, and more American blood has been shed in Afghanistan than those other 3 conflicts.

Stability in Iraq is even higher on Trump's agenda.

Which conflicts will Trump hand over to Russia?

In this article we will examine which conflicts Trump is most likely to hand over to Russia.


1) Syria

Syria is obviously first. Whether Trump defeats ISIS with the American military in Syria or merely hands the conflict over to Russia is unclear, but in either case, early withdrawal from Syria by Trump is likely to happen. Trump would cease funding for the rebels in exchange for Russia, Syria and Iran focusing on the ISIS threat first. Trump would make sure that the rebels holed up in Idlib would be driven out of Syria after ISIS is driven out of Deir Ez-Zor and Raqqa provinces by the Syrian Arab Army.

2) Libya

Haftar Al-Khalifa, who has his eyes on controlling the entirety of Libya, has been regularly meeting with the Russians to garner support from them for his Tobruk-based government. These talks have continued even with Trump being named President elect, which suggests that Libya, like Syria, is going to be handed over to Russia and, like Syria, will be stabilized by Russia.

Strong men are the antidote for terrorism, and no one understands this better than Putin and Trump. Haftar Al-Khalifa and Bashar Al-Assad controlling Libya and Syria respectably would stabilize those two countries without question.

The advantages of stability in Libya are obvious. Russia being peace-keeper for Syria and Libya would mean that Russia would remain a dominant world power while also helping both the EU and the wider world with the immigration crisis.

3) Yemen

This conflict is getting worse by the day, and nobody is paying attention to it. Famine is occurring in Yemen on a massive scale; Al-Qaeda is getting empowered; Saudi Arabia's own economy is weakening. If Trump cannot stop Saudi from waging war on Yemen, he would likely hand over this conflict to Russia as well rather than risk alienation of Saudi Arabia.

Russia would fight to ensure the Houthis control the entirety of Yemen, meaning that King Salman would suffer a huge blow in prestige, having been defeated in Syria and Yemen, and likely causing the Saudi population great resentment towards not only Russia, but the Saudi leadership itself.


These are the three most likely countries in the Middle-East which would be handed over by Trump to the Russians. It would cause much more stability in the Middle-East without costing America a dollar.

Will Trump contain Iran?

Trump has a plan to contain Iran.

Yet Trump is unlikely to touch Iran's role in the Syrian Civil War. To fight Iranian influence in Syria would be to fight Russia - not only so, to fight Iranian influence in Syria would be to fight on behalf of 'moderate rebels' like Al-Qaeda, ISIS and Ahrar Ash-Sham. This is counter to American interest and thus is a policy which would be discarded by Trump.

Regarding the Iran Nuclear Deal, Trump is unlikely to, as he proposed, 'rip it up.' The main reason for this is, now President-Elect, Trump is able to read the deal and its success in, currently, deterring Iran from forming nuclear weapons. To be sure, the Iranian Nuclear Deal is not a long-term solution, but for now, Trump is more likely to use it for all its worth than simply discard it. However, should Iran break the agreement themselves, Trump would likely put extensive sanctions on Iran - worse than before - rather than wage war on Iran.

It is unlikely that America or any of her Arab allies would be allowed to wage war on Iran. To do so would be to tear Trump foreign policy to shreds. It would jeopardize relations with Russia, bankrupt the American economy - which desperately needs to recover - and continue the ugly neo-con hawk foreign policies of Bush and Obama. Such policies have torn the Middle-East (and America) to shreds since the Iraq War - policies Trump has largely criticized on the campaign trail.


One solution to the Iran conundrum lies, ironically, in Iraq. Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq was anti-Israel, anti-Shi'ite and anti-Iran, the latter two only exacerbated by the Iran-Iraq War of the 1970's. Since the Iraq War, Iran has held considerable sway over Iraqi affairs.

But to decrease Iranian influence, it is unlikely a Sunni dictator would be reinstalled in Iraq - the secret to Iraqi break away from Iran is in the strengthening of Iraq as a sovereign nation. One way this could be done would be to increase Iraqi exports and relations - another way is through using "Iraqi democracy."

In 2010, the opportunity for Iraq to extract itself from Iranian influence was ignored by the Obama Administration. Allawi, a secular Shi'ite, won the Iraqi election against previous Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki - Al-Maliki subsequently engaged in fraud to win a second term. The Obama Administration did nothing about it and let Al-Maliki, Iran's puppet, rule on in Iraq.

Should such an opportunity present itself again for Trump, he would be quick to seize upon it.

Another solution to containing Iran lies in Afghanistan. Should Trump allow a Sunni strong man to control Afghanistan, the kind of bulwark against Iranian influence previously experienced in Iraq would be present in Afghanistan instead. Alternatively, if Trump withdraws from Afghanistan, instability there would threaten Iran on its border.

Another way to contain Iranian influence would be to let Saudi Arabia tear itself to shreds. Should Trump increase unbearable policies towards Saudi Arabia as he intends to, Saudi Arabia would explode in civil war, causing all the Shi'ite population in the Gulf to resettle in Iraq, Syria or Iran.

This would irrevocably end Iranian presence in the Gulf and, while ISIS or Al-Qaeda would likely be benefactors, Iran would most certainly not.

These are some of the ways Iran would have its presence weakened in the Middle-East. Trump is likely to prove there are more ways than just war to weaken a power.

Russian interest in Afghanistan and Iraq likely to influence Trump policy

While Trump is fine for Russia to have more of an influence in the Middle-East, influence in Afghanistan and Iraq would be unacceptable for an 'America-First' Trump policy.

Under a Trump Administration 15 years of hard fighting in Afghanistan and over 10 years of fighting in Iraq are unlikely to be wasted by Russian control of those countries. Trump is more likely to drastically change the strategies in both Iraq and Afghanistan to achieve victory there, while leaving Russia to deal with other sizable conflicts in the Middle-East.

Trump has a valuable opportunity to get Putin to solve the conflicts in Syria, Libya and Yemen, without America itself lifting a finger. In Syria, the looming Russian victory is obvious; in Libya, Haftar al-Khalifa, the likely next dictator, is already making visits to Russia. Even Ali Abdullah Saleh, one of the main supporters of the Houthi movement in Yemen, has boasted that Putin would ally with him in the future.

But Russian interest in Afghanistan and Iraq runs counter to American interest, since so much blood has been spilt there without, as of yet, benefitting America much at all.

America's solution to the Iraq problem is simple: oil. Should America, after the destruction of ISIS in Iraq, protect their oilfields to increase production while decreasing production from Iran and Saudi Arabia, the Iraqi economy would boom and the ISIS threat to Iraq would be nullified.

In Afghanistan the solution is more complex. Certainly a strong government is needed to control Afghanistan, one which provides a sizable alternative to the Taliban and to neighbouring Iranian influence. The challenges of a government of this kind in Afghanistan are immense. Can Trump pull it off? Maybe.

The solution for Afghanistan is a nation-wide banning of the Taliban from the country and, should any surface, they should be arrested and jailed. Such penalties are harsh, but are the only way to get a country like Afghanistan stable.

Long-term, Afghanistan has the regional potential to act as a counterbalance much like Saddam Hussein's Iraq did. This of course is unlikely to go unnoticed under the Trump Administration. Should Pakistani and Iranian influence be quenched from Afghanistan, stability would be much easier there and even benefit stability in the wider region.

Russian interest in Iraq and Afghanistan may just be Russia's way of asking Trump for a free hand in Syria, Libya and Yemen. Trump is likely to let Russia have a free hand in those conflicts to focus more on 'Make America Great Again'.

Why Trump's withdrawal from Syria couldn't be easier

Trump has stated in his 'first 100 days' speech that he wishes to 'cancel every unconstitutional executive order.' Obama's Syrian war on ISIS is unconstitutional to the highest degree.

Not only did Obama receive no permission from the Syrian Government to fly in its airspace - unlike Russia and Iran - but Obama did so without working through Congress.

In light of this, Trump can avoid using Congress to withdraw from the war - Congress had no say in the beginning of the ISIS-Syrian war, and will have no say in its likely quick conclusion at the coming of Trump as President.

This would force Russia to work harder on the ISIS threat in Syria and spend less time on the rebels held up in Idlib. It would be valuable in causing international focus on the common threat of ISIS.

Withdrawing from Syria forces Russia to pick up more of the war on terror, and allows America to save some of its finances for other sectors, especially domestic.

It also means that more focus will be put by the Trump Administration at a lasting solution to the Iraq War. Without it, terrorism and ISIS will only increase in the region - with Russia focusing on Syria and America likely to focus on Iraq, it is imperative Trump find an economic-political solution to keep Iraq stable, which he seems likely to do.

A withdrawal from Syria would increase Trump's popularity. Let's hope he doesn't pass up on the opportunity.