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.