From campaign to reality

By Jack Segal | Nov. 27, 2016

As President-elect Donald Trump takes control of U.S. foreign policy, a large percentage of the population is betting that he lacks the skills required to handle our numerous overseas problems. An equally large segment of the public is expecting him to go into problem areas with guns blazing to destroy our opponents. I think both groups will be proven wrong.

Trump is definitely a neophyte in diplomacy, but he’s not stupid and wants to succeed as president. If we learned anything in this election campaign, it should be clear that he’s his own man and will pursue policies he thinks will make him “a winner.” It should also be clear that any adviser to President Trump whose last name isn’t Trump (or Kushner) is going to have absolutely zero control over him, so I don’t get too worked up about the names being mentioned as potential advisers.

He’ll do what he wants, confident that his judgment on most matters is superior to anyone else’s. With that understanding of how I think the Trump administration will operate, here’s a prediction of how he will approach three key interrelated issues: ISIS, Iran and Russia.

During the campaign, Trump promised to destroy the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) to improve relations with Russia, and to “fix” the Iran nuclear deal (“one of the most incompetent deals of any kind I’ve ever seen.”).

To turn his rhetoric into fact, Mr. Trump, I believe, will make a cold calculation of what cards he has in hand, first, with regard to ISIS. His assessment of the situation is clear: “Syria is fighting ISIS; and you have to get rid of ISIS. Russia is now totally aligned with Syria, and now you have Iran, which is becoming powerful, because of us, is aligned with Syria. … Now we’re backing rebels against Syria, and we have no idea who these people are.” Trump’s own plan for dealing with ISIS remains a “secret.”

But when the Syrian conundrum is viewed as a transaction among the major players — in other words a negotiation — clearly, the U.S. is in a weak position. I believe “negotiator in chief” Trump will decide to cut our losses. He will go along with perpetuating the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria by aligning U.S. efforts with those of Russia and abandoning our support for both the Syrian rebels and the Kurds (unless they are willing to regroup and focus exclusively on fighting ISIS).

I think Trump will surmise that Russia is not likely to work with us on our broad range of other problems (Ukraine, NATO, missile defense) if we try to reverse current trends in Syria. There, Russia has rejected our assertion that overthrowing Assad should be part of the strategy and has gone “all-in” with its air force to help the Assad regime destroy the “terrorists” — synonymous in Assad’s view with ISIS and the opposition groups (including some we support). By supporting Assad, Moscow has solidified its hold on military bases in Syria and on its newfound role as a player in Middle East politics.

With the U.S. holding such a weak hand (no boots on the ground), and despite the humanitarian disaster playing out in the war zone, the president-elect seems likely to play along with the Moscow-Damascus strategy, leaving Assad in power, the opposition in disarray and ISIS under siege in eastern Syria. For the opposition groups that we supported and often created, their future is dim. Like the proxy armies we created in days gone by, they will, I fear, see that we don’t “have their back.” For the Kurds, once again their dreams of independence seem doomed — incompatible with our interests in Iran and unacceptable to our largest Muslim ally, Turkey. For Moscow, accepting the inevitable in Syria could open the way to Putin’s and the president-elect’s hinted-at desire for rapprochement.

Trump will need Iran to keep fighting ISIS, and for Iran to keep supporting Hezbollah in Syria against ISIS. Severing the tentative ties with Tehran that were built through the nuclear deal makes no sense so long as those pro-Iranian forces are needed in that final battle to “destroy” the Islamic State. That fact limits how far a Trump administration can push Iran. Prospective Trump administration official John Bolton’s demand for “regime change” in Iran doesn’t make any sense in that (or any other) context. (If I’m wrong on this, let’s get together the next time you’re in Thunder Bay.)

But that leaves the much-maligned Iranian nuclear deal in its current state of uncertainty. Once demanding it be “torn up,” Trump recently promised he would “fix” it. Tehran may well be interested in having that discussion. The Iranians have mostly complied with the terms of the deal, removed tons of enriched Uranium, disabled the Arak plutonium reactor, and taken thousands of centrifuges out of service. Some of this could quickly be reversed if Tehran feels it’s under attack from the Trump administration.

But Iran is dissatisfied with the slow pace of economic opening, and so too are western companies. Businesses are holding back until they know whether Trump plans to scuttle the deal, or only to tweak its provisions. Again, for businessman Trump, that will prove attractive; another high-stakes negotiation, this one with the ayatollahs over what they need to do to allow free enterprise to blossom.

All of this could be 100 percent wrong and might even appear so by the time this column is published. But what is certain is that Trump’s Syria/Iraq/Iran/Russia challenge will be no easier for him to solve than it has been for his predecessors. Who he chooses to listen to and how he goes about the task will tell much about the future of U.S. foreign policy, and will tell our allies and adversaries much about the enigmatic Trump.

Jack Segal is co-chair of the International Affairs Forum. After the holidays, on Feb. 16, the IAF will host Gen Next Foundation executive director Humaira Wakili. Gen Next aims to combat violent extremist recruiting on the internet.