Error occured during this request! Please try again later.
Iraqi soldiers stand on guard as they secure Shiite Muslim pilgrims walking on the outskirts of the Iraqi capital Baghdad towards the southern Iraqi city of Karbala on October 25, 2018, ahead of the Arbaeen religious festival which marks the 40th day after Ashura, commemorating the seventh century killing of the Prophet Mohammed's grandson Imam Hussein. Photo: Ahmad al-Rubaye/AFP
The shift in unilateral US foreign policy during the Donald Trump administration has broken international norms established since the creation of the United Nations following World War II. Its effect in Iraq warrants examination: Are Trump's policies wrong, misguided, or misinterpreted?
"The US is revising its vision, its strategy for the region. It's expended a lot of blood and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan, and still is. And that has yielded limited dividends, one could argue very plausibly," said Ranj Alaadin, visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Center, on the sidelines of the Middle East Research Institute Forum on Wednesday.
One of the biggest criticisms of foreign policy under Trump is it lacks strategic vision, a point repeated by European and Turkish panelists at the event, including Taha Ozhan, research director at Ankara Institute & former Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Turkish parliament.
"I wish we could have an encompassing agenda, so things can be dramatically changed," said Ozhan.
Arguments by Ramon Blecua, the European Union's Ambassador to Iraq, called US policy a threat to multilateralism and compared the United States to "revisionist countries" like India, China, Russia, and Iran which have not wanted to follow the post-World War II order that the United States was party to.
US alliances or partnerships with state actors like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iraq and non/sub-state actors is similar to the world order pre-World War I. Blecua said a "system of alliances" could avoid short-term conflicts, but could lead to a domino effect "in an automatic manner with everyone thinking this is going to be short and we are going to be on top."
"I think we are looking at a scenario that is very similar to World War I when the countries in Europe walked into a conflict that lasted four years and nearly destroyed every single thing that remained from the old Europe..." he added.
Alaadin was cautious in judging Trump's Middle East decisions so far.
"It's perhaps too soon to be too judgmental on America bearing in mind that a lot of the American engagements you have in Iraq and Syria were either implemented or left over from the Obama administration of course. So you had a shift away from the heavy footprint type of foreign policy in conflict zones from the Obama era," he said.
"But ultimately it's investing in the politics, having a political strategy. Having only a strategy that is geared around military engagements only ends up producing long-term costs," he added.
Speculation on relations between Trump, the State Department, career foreign service officers, and special envoys is much more of a domestic issue for the Americans to settle than for Brussels or Geneva to be concerned with.
"That's perhaps caused a rethinking but also a backlash from the American society and the Western societies as a whole. Hence why you've got now a divergence away from things like state-building and reconstruction," said Alaadin.
European governments do not have to agree with Trump's disregard for the United Nations, the European Union, and member state contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). But they still currently are likely to side with Washington diplomatically because they are beholden to the interests of their large firms who already have pulled their businesses out of Iran after Trump's withdrawal from the nuclear deal in May. Efforts to salvage the nuclear deal or introduce a "special currency" have been ineffective.
Trade sanctions already have forced Iran to cozy up to China and energy sanctions are set to be implemented on November 4.
Former US Ambassador Alberto M. Fernandez spent 40 years either stationed in or focused on the MENA and speaks Arabic. He worked under Democrat and Republican administrations. He argued there is "disastrous governance regionally" and most have a "mythological view of the region" that is endemic in foreign capitals.
"The problem with the nuclear deal was there was a tradeoff. You got the nuclear deal at the expense of looking away or accepting Iran's behavior in the region and destabilizing effects by Iran including its ballistic missile program," he said on the sidelines of a panel.
Iranian foreign policy systematically opposes that of the United States across the Middle East. As Iran nears completion of its Shiite crescent from Tehran to Beirut, Fernandez believes the nuclear deal was the enabling force.
"What they've been able to do is leverage crises to extend their sway. So they are much more powerful in the region than they were a decade ago," he said, admittedly an opponent of the Obama administration's foreign policy towards Iran.
Former Iraqi Ambassador Lukman Faily argues that Baghdad should not be forced to pick a side because it does not serve the country.
"At this moment, I think we are too fragile for us to be a balancing act..."
The orders and doctrine of US presidents over the last 15 years in Iraq have proven their inability to remove Baath-era ideology (which the West was at the very least aware of), blind party loyalty, sectarianism, and corruption.
"The US is revising its vision, its strategy for the region. It's expended a lot of blood and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan, and still is. And that has yielded limited dividends, one could argue very plausibly," said Ranj Alaadin, visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Center, on the sidelines of the Middle East Research Institute Forum on Wednesday.
One of the biggest criticisms of foreign policy under Trump is it lacks strategic vision, a point repeated by European and Turkish panelists at the event, including Taha Ozhan, research director at Ankara Institute & former Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Turkish parliament.
"I wish we could have an encompassing agenda, so things can be dramatically changed," said Ozhan.
Arguments by Ramon Blecua, the European Union's Ambassador to Iraq, called US policy a threat to multilateralism and compared the United States to "revisionist countries" like India, China, Russia, and Iran which have not wanted to follow the post-World War II order that the United States was party to.
US alliances or partnerships with state actors like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iraq and non/sub-state actors is similar to the world order pre-World War I. Blecua said a "system of alliances" could avoid short-term conflicts, but could lead to a domino effect "in an automatic manner with everyone thinking this is going to be short and we are going to be on top."
"I think we are looking at a scenario that is very similar to World War I when the countries in Europe walked into a conflict that lasted four years and nearly destroyed every single thing that remained from the old Europe..." he added.
Alaadin was cautious in judging Trump's Middle East decisions so far.
"It's perhaps too soon to be too judgmental on America bearing in mind that a lot of the American engagements you have in Iraq and Syria were either implemented or left over from the Obama administration of course. So you had a shift away from the heavy footprint type of foreign policy in conflict zones from the Obama era," he said.
"But ultimately it's investing in the politics, having a political strategy. Having only a strategy that is geared around military engagements only ends up producing long-term costs," he added.
Speculation on relations between Trump, the State Department, career foreign service officers, and special envoys is much more of a domestic issue for the Americans to settle than for Brussels or Geneva to be concerned with.
"That's perhaps caused a rethinking but also a backlash from the American society and the Western societies as a whole. Hence why you've got now a divergence away from things like state-building and reconstruction," said Alaadin.
European governments do not have to agree with Trump's disregard for the United Nations, the European Union, and member state contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). But they still currently are likely to side with Washington diplomatically because they are beholden to the interests of their large firms who already have pulled their businesses out of Iran after Trump's withdrawal from the nuclear deal in May. Efforts to salvage the nuclear deal or introduce a "special currency" have been ineffective.
Trade sanctions already have forced Iran to cozy up to China and energy sanctions are set to be implemented on November 4.
Alaadin argues the impetus is on the Iranian regime to prove it will stand for peace. He foresees two possible realistic outcomes for Iraq: an unlikely agreement between Riyadh and Tehran or the country returning to a "theater of conflict."
Former US Ambassador Alberto M. Fernandez spent 40 years either stationed in or focused on the MENA and speaks Arabic. He worked under Democrat and Republican administrations. He argued there is "disastrous governance regionally" and most have a "mythological view of the region" that is endemic in foreign capitals.
"The problem with the nuclear deal was there was a tradeoff. You got the nuclear deal at the expense of looking away or accepting Iran's behavior in the region and destabilizing effects by Iran including its ballistic missile program," he said on the sidelines of a panel.
Iranian foreign policy systematically opposes that of the United States across the Middle East. As Iran nears completion of its Shiite crescent from Tehran to Beirut, Fernandez believes the nuclear deal was the enabling force.
"What they've been able to do is leverage crises to extend their sway. So they are much more powerful in the region than they were a decade ago," he said, admittedly an opponent of the Obama administration's foreign policy towards Iran.
Nowhere has Iranian influence grown so broadly as it has in Iraq — at economic, social, and governmental levels. With a new prime minister, many in the West are hopeful Adil Abdul-Mahdi can balance Saudi influence in Iraq with Iranian influence.
Former Iraqi Ambassador Lukman Faily argues that Baghdad should not be forced to pick a side because it does not serve the country.
"As a diplomat ... I do not believe in this balancing game. I have never believed in it. It is nearly impossible to achieve because it has contradictory requirements from the parties," he posited during a panel. "There has not been any serious dialogue between the Iranians and the Americans, and therefore you expect to be a balance between both without having the capability internally — internal political cohesion, economical independence?
"At this moment, I think we are too fragile for us to be a balancing act..."
While Trump has shaken up the established order, he has not wrecked it. Perhaps unpredictability frightens those who have rigidly served country as diplomats. But in a place like the Middle East where uncertainty is the norm, responsible actions should be afforded merit when due. Decisions should not be merely opposed for trying unorthodox approaches.
The orders and doctrine of US presidents over the last 15 years in Iraq have proven their inability to remove Baath-era ideology (which the West was at the very least aware of), blind party loyalty, sectarianism, and corruption.
Comments
Rudaw moderates all comments submitted on our website. We welcome comments which are relevant to the article and encourage further discussion about the issues that matter to you. We also welcome constructive criticism about Rudaw.
To be approved for publication, however, your comments must meet our community guidelines.
We will not tolerate the following: profanity, threats, personal attacks, vulgarity, abuse (such as sexism, racism, homophobia or xenophobia), or commercial or personal promotion.
Comments that do not meet our guidelines will be rejected. Comments are not edited – they are either approved or rejected.
Post a comment