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.