US President Donald Trump has been laying out a vision for how his administration views the Middle East. The administration came into office hoping that it could end the conflict in Gaza and bring a hostage and ceasefire deal. It was initially successful, however, the ceasefire fell apart in March.
The administration has now moved on to lay out a larger vision of how it views the region. This was on display in Trump’s trip to the Gulf in mid-May and also recent comments from Trump’s envoy to Syria.
On May 25, US Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack, who is the new US envoy to Syria, wrote on social media about a message for Damascus. “A century ago, the West imposed maps, mandates, penciled borders, and foreign rule. Sykes-Picot divided Syria and the broader region for imperial gain, not peace. That mistake cost generations. We will not make it again,” he wrote.
This is an important message, and it is linked to Trump’s speech in Riyadh.
It’s not the first time that the US has sought to contrast its role in the region with the role of European powers. In fact, the US has often sought to differentiate its policies from those of the Europeans. Franklin Roosevelt often made it a message that the US was not entering World War II in order to preserve European colonies.
Later in 1956, the Eisenhower administration was also not pleased with the French and British intervention in Egypt. However, that sense that the US role was different changed over recent decades. After the Gulf War, the US was the main hegemonic power in the region.
This was a shift from the Cold War when the US was supporting friendly countries. Now the US was viewed as a nation builder and global policeman. Countries chaffed at the imposition. Extremists flourished.
Today that has changed. The Obama administration sought to chart a new course in a speech in Cairo. However he was critiqued for his policies during the Arab Spring and his drive for an Iran deal.
Barrack wrote that “the era of Western interference is over. The future belongs to regional solutions, but partnerships, and a diplomacy grounded in respect. As President Trump emphasized in his May 13th address in Riyadh, ‘Gone are the days when Western interventionalists would fly to the Middle East to give lectures on how to live, and how to govern your own affairs.’”
Barrack is seeking to build on Trump’s doctrine and apply it to Syria. Trump reached out to Syria’s President Ahmed al-Shara’a in Riyadh. He did so after support from the Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman of Saudi Arabia and also Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Both MBS and Erdogan are close to Trump. They encouraged him to meet Shara’a and change US policy on Syria. “Syria’s tragedy was born in division. Its rebirth must come through dignity, unity, and investment in its people. That starts with truth, accountability—and working with the region, not around it,” Barrack wrote.
Barrack’s role as ambassador to Turkey makes sense as an envoy to Syria because Turkey borders Syria and Ankara is close to the new government in Damascus. Turkey is running to invest in the new Syria. Having Barrack build on the Riyadh speech makes sense.
Barrack also said that the US is standing with Turkey, the Gulf and Europe on Syria policy. “This time not with troops and lectures, or imaginary boundaries, but shoulder-to-shoulder with the Syrian people themselves.
With the fall of the Assad regime the door is open to peace—by eliminating sanctions we are enabling the Syrian people to finally open that door and discover a path to renewed prosperity and security,” he wrote.
The word “lectures” is important here because it links to Trump’s speech in Riyadh, which was well received. “It’s crucial for the wider world to note this great transformation has not come from Western interventionalists or flying people in beautiful planes giving you lectures on how to live and how to govern your own affairs. No, the gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called nation-builders, neocons or liberal nonprofits like those who spent trillions and trillions of dollars failing to develop Kabul, Baghdad, so many other cities,” Trump said.
The US president has said that “before our eyes a new generation of leaders is transcending the ancient conflicts of tired divisions of the past and forging a future where the Middle East is defined by commerce, not chaos; where it exports technology, not terrorism; and where people of different nations, religions, and creeds are building cities together, not bombing each other out of existence.”
This is an important comment because during his first administration, Trump had appeared to indicate that the US wanted to walk away from the region.
However, he had also become more involved in confronting Iran. The policy seemed contradictory without a clear statement or vision.
The first Trump administration also had high turnover in terms of officials, such as the departure of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and National Security Advisor John Bolton. Now, Trump has assembled a capable team, and they are in line with his views.
As part of a departure from the past, Trump has sketched a doctrine that is against the policies of the early 2000s. “This great transformation has not come from Western interventionists … giving you lectures on how to live or how to govern your own affairs. No, the gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called ‘nation-builders,’ ‘neo-cons,’ or ‘liberal non-profits,’ like those who spent trillions failing to develop Kabul and Baghdad, so many other cities. Instead, the birth of a modern Middle East has been brought about by the people of the region themselves … developing your own sovereign countries, pursuing your own unique visions, and charting your own destinies.”
The critique of “neo-cons” is also seen as one reason the administration has parted ways with some key members of the National Security Council who came on board during the first months of the new administration, but have already left. In essence, the new doctrine is suspicious of past US policy.
It quickly ended a short bombing campaign of the Houthis, for instance. The administration realized this was a sunk cost and sought to move on. It is also trying to get to an arrangement with Iran that would lower tensions. It is likely that US partners in the Gulf prefer tensions are reduced.
Trump administration wants to prevent tensions
Oman has mediated the talks. Back in 2019, tensions with Iran spiraled and led to attacks on ships in the Gulf of Oman and on US troops in Iraq. Tensions with Turkey also led to a Turkish invasion of northern Syria. This time, the administration wants to avoid all of this.
The initial vision will have to confront tough challenges in the coming year. This involves not only Iran but also the Gaza War and other issues. There is conflict in Sudan and Libya. The recent short conflict between India and Pakistan illustrates how unforeseen conflicts can develop.
Jesus Christ is King
Comments are closed.