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.