By Anton Evstratov
The betrayal of the Syrian Kurds by the United States, a new round of confrontation with Iran provoked by Washington, the ongoing confrontation between the Yemeni Ansar Allah and all the American allies of the Arabian Peninsula, and the American troops not withdrawn from Afghanistan and Iraq.
This is not a complete list of foreign policy “achievements” of the administration of the current US President Donald Trump in the Middle East. And this despite the fact that it was Trump who, in anticipation of the presidential election he won, actively tried on the role of the “dove of peace”, promising to return American troops home and refuse to directly engage his country in problems beyond its borders.
Moreover, during his first overseas visit, the purpose of which was Saudi Riyadh, Trump made a speech in which he said that the role of the United States in solving Middle Eastern problems will now become auxiliary, and responsibility for the future of the region should rest with its states. As a result, the number of US troops in the Middle East in the following years … increased by as much as 14 thousand people, and the president himself vetoed the bill to limit direct American participation in the war in Yemen.
The only thing affected by the “new vector of American politics” was the position of the Kurds of the Syrian democratic forces in northeastern Syria, whom the American leader … simply betrayed by giving to the Turks for eating. And if it were not for the active opposition of the administration of President Bashar al-Assad, Russia and Iran, the Turks would surely take advantage of the “opportunity” that had opened.
However, those American troops that were withdrawn from the Kurdish territories of Syria did not return home to the United States, but merely crossed the Iraqi border and remained in the region. In parallel with this, another 2,000 American soldiers and officers, contrary to Trump’s “peace-loving” speeches, went to risk their lives in Saudi Arabia – actually a very wealthy state with its own, quite powerful armed sala, and also known for the systematic violations of those beloved in the United States, human rights on its territory.
As a leading American journalist Daniel Larison said on this occasion, even if the Saudis fully paid for this activity of the United States, it is in itself equivalent to turning part of the US armed forces into a hired force of the Saudi government, which should be unacceptable to the American people. And this is not to mention the continuation of the sale to the Saudi regime, waging one, and constantly threatening to start another (with Iran) war, American weapons worth hundreds of billions of dollars!
From all the above, we can make a completely logical conclusion that at present, for the sake of its often immediate benefit, the United States of America not only does not stop its permanent activity in the Middle East, but also does not stop on this path before manipulating the world community and betraying their own allies.
There is no doubt that this kind of destructive role of the United States in the region was by no means emerging in the presidency of the hapless Trump. American foreign policy shows a very strict trend towards historical continuity and long-term strategic planning (sometimes for decades), so what is happening in the region at the present time is nothing but the tip of this iceberg.
However, one must understand that American policy in the Middle East is on the path to tightening methods and means of achieving goals. It can be generally divided into three stages. If in 1945-1971 the United States acted in the region relatively gently and for the most part “carrot”, trying to oust Britain from there, then from 1971 to 1979. Washington began building its own security architecture in the region, relying on loyal and relatively strong regional standards allies – Turkey, the Arabian monarchies and Shah Iran.
This construction was destroyed by the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the entry of Soviet troops into Afghanistan, as well as the civil war in Yemen, and then the United States switched to a “whip” policy – often outright aggression. First, they literally filled weapons in the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein during the war against Iran. In the course of this war, a series of acts of direct aggression against the Islamic Republic took place (in particular, the flooding of several Iranian ships and the downing of an Iranian passenger liner over the Persian Gulf). However, soon “a friend and ally” Saddam ceased to be such for Washington, and under the pretext of protecting Kuwait against the Iraqi dictator, the operation “Desert Storm” was carried out, bringing down all the power of American troops and their European and regional allies to his country.
Further more. In 2001, the United States invaded Afghanistan, and in 2003, Iraq, destroying the regimes that ruled there (it should be noted that they were also not angelic, but at least somehow stabilized the situation in both republics) and plunged both countries into the abyss chaos, war of all against all and permanent economic collapse. And if oil-rich Iraq even more or less rebelled a few years ago (although American troops still remain on its territory, and terrorist attacks continue), the Afghan government still does not control most of the territory of its country.
However, direct wars — all the more so at such a distance from American territory, as well as keeping large military contingents across the seas — are a costly affair, even for such a large economy as the American one. These factors predetermined the success of the two presidential campaigns of Barack Obama, who promised to refrain from aggressive foreign policy and was the first to “decide” to return the American soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan to their homes.
The promises turned out to be a lie – there was only a reduction in the contingents in both countries, and direct military intervention in others replaced the indirect one – this was the origin of the Arab Spring phenomenon, which directly affected the peoples of Libya, Syria, Yemen and other countries. In the bottom line, it was the “Arab Spring” that created the Islamic State as a major military-political force and revived Al-Qaeda, which underwent a kind of rebranding and became “Jabhat al-Nusra” (now – Hayat Tahrir al-Sham).
It is noteworthy that while indirect participation in the overthrow of unwanted political regimes was bearing fruit, this method of the United States was quite satisfactory, however, as soon as they came across an impregnable Syrian stronghold in this regard, where the Bashar al-Assad government stood, they again switched to military intervention. It is worth recalling that, in addition to supporting radical Islamists in Syria (both directly through Turkish and Jordanian territories, and indirectly through close alliance with Saudi Arabia and Qatar), the United States launched rocket attacks several times on the Arab Republic, and then without agreement with her government, they introduced their military contingent into the northeastern part of the SAR. This is not just a contradiction to Obama’s promises, it is a direct military aggression against a sovereign state, which is still not condemned at the international level and, of course, not punished.
The whole system of international relations after 1991, when the alternative pole of power in the form of the Soviet Union collapsed, which is directly dependent on the United States, is designed in such a way that there is no clear definition of who should not hold independence referenda (as was the case in Artsakh, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria or Crimea), to include in their composition subjects of international relations that have expressed a corresponding desire (Armenia with Artsakh, Russia with Crimea), to ensure the security of their own territory, to whom wow. Nevertheless, the American allies (Kosovo, Turkey) obviously feel more free in this respect than states that are not so closely connected with Washington.
However, geopolitical and economic realities are changing. The United States again began to worry about the increased spending on military activities overseas, Washington could not help but have consequences, and the loyal Syrian Kurds, of course, could not and cannot refund these expenses. The conclusion was made clear and precise – you can’t pay – die. Immediately, President Trump remembered that his country had no obligations to the Kurds. It must be assumed that in non-public consultations with the leaders of the SDS, something else was said earlier – otherwise it would be hard to imagine the very emergence of Kurdish autonomy in northeast Syria.
An important point here was the desire of the American leader to save the key regional ally of the United States – Turkey, which began to show independence and greatly complicates the lives of Americans. At the same time, Ankara was and remains a member of NATO, a buyer of American weapons. Apparently, the contradictions between Turkish aspirations and American demands will still make themselves felt in the form of a much more serious conflict than the current Syrian one, but now the parties are not ready for such a clash.
At the same time, Saudi Arabia – albeit an aggressor, moreover very arrogant and demanding, buys only one American weapon under contracts for 110-120 billion dollars (and this is not counting the associated costs, which increase this amount by more than double). In this regard, a case with an attack by missiles and drones of Yemenite Hussites (Ansar Allah) at the refineries of the kingdom is indicative. UAVs and missiles were able to easily bypass the American Patriot systems, armed with the Saudis, and hit the targets. As a result, senior officers of the American army were forced to literally make excuses to the world community (and in fact, to the kingdom), obviously, faced with the risk of losing the following profitable contracts.
What conclusions can be drawn from the situation?
Firstly, it is obvious that the policy of the United States in the Middle East for a significant part of the 20th century brings to the people of the region, often ambiguous consequences – military conflicts (Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan), humanitarian disasters (Yemen, Iraq), economic problems (Iran , Syria).
Secondly, this order did not take shape under President Trump, and not even before him. This is a common vector of American foreign policy after World War II.
Thirdly, the main goal of such a policy is to dominate as an imperial power in the region in all spheres – economic, political, ideological. To become an ally of the United States means to accept this dominance, as did the Gulf monarchies. To be an American ally and pursue an independent policy is a metaphysical contradiction. A vivid example is Turkey of recent years.
Fourth, all statements by American politicians of one caliber or another about “withdrawing troops” or “enhancing the role of regional players” are political manipulations, either for internal use (on the eve of the elections), or for the purpose of manipulating the mentioned players and solving quite specific tasks.
Fifthly, American politics in the Middle East, however, is not limited to brute military force and political pressure, and has many methods. This is working with the opposition and organizing revolutions, and proxy wars (military operations with the wrong hands), and involving the necessary states in ambitious economic, political and military projects, etc. However, the goals of Washington’s total dominance in all spheres of the region’s life are none of these methods cancels.
All these conclusions cannot but lead the regional states to formulate the currently important policy objective – to counteract one or another form of American foreign policy aspirations. However, this problem cannot be solved without a series of consistent measures, among which:
1) A clear understanding and understanding of Washington’s goals in the region
2) The creation of a bloc of regional states that disagree with US dominance. At the moment, the backbone of such a bloc may be Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, partly Iraq. Thus, the concept of the “Shiite crescent”, the most effective at the moment geopolitical project of a corresponding orientation, has been repeatedly voiced earlier.
3) Active work with loyal public groups of countries allied to the United States – in particular, the Shiite minorities of the Persian Gulf countries, the Arab population of Israel and others, in order to gain his sympathy and strengthen anti-American discourse within these states.
4) Alliance and partnership with powerful extra-regional players with similar goals. Now these are Russia and China. The first, due to territorial proximity and military power, is a priority. However, China’s economic potential is also important in the current confrontation.
5) The development of not only political and military, but also economic integration between the countries of the specified bloc (in this regard, the Russian North-South project, as well as the Chinese “One Belt – One Way” appear relevant).
(The views expressed in this article belong only to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of World Geostrategic Insights).