What Does the Future of the Middle East Depend On?
By Colby Cyrus/ Contributing Writer
At a recent panel hosted by The Brookings Institution, a discussion about President Trump’s role in the future of the Middle East seemed to determine that the next step is nothing more than a looming question mark.
Featured in the discussion were Adel Abdel Ghafar of the Brookings Doha Center, John Hudak of the Center for Effective Public Management, and Shibley Telhami from Brookings’ Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World, and Yeganeh Torbati of Reuters who moderated the talk.
The actual power of the president to shape the Middle East came into question, especially due to Donald Trump’s apparent inexperience in foreign policy dealings because of his lack of holding public office and dealing with foreign leaders in this context.
Despite Trump’s lack of prior knowledge in conducting international negotiations, the panel agreed that he appears to favor a disconnect from agencies meant to assist in the foreign policy process; of particular note is a supposed disengagement between Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
As national security priorities mix with the personal preferences of leaders, balances become harder to strike, the scholars noted. The Arab-Israeli conflict, for example, remains high on Trump’s list of priorities as it has with several past administrations.
However, given the recent changes in the international political climate, striking a peace deal between Israel and Palestine has taken more of a backseat in the minds of many decision makers, as well as average citizens, according to the panel members.
Trump stays dedicated to the process, as illustrated by Jared Kushner’s recent trip to the region, but American national security does not face a make-or-break situation in regards to peace. The country has bigger priorities; for example, defeating ISIS and global terror as a whole.
So what does the future of the Middle East depend on? The underlining theme, as presented at the panel, outlines the need for complete cooperation and teamwork in solving the Middle East conundrum. Issues as complex as this cannot be solved by one line of decision making, and the president will need to adopt and incorporate other options before true progress comes around.
Future teamwork with foreign policy agencies also prevents the likelihood of increased influence by international powers or actors, who find opportunity in isolated presidents insistent on working alone, said Shibley Telhami of the Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World. The biggest uncertainty going forward concerns Trump’s actual priorities in the Middle East. Aside from defeating ISIS, Trump’s campaign rhetoric has yet to become implemented via his actual policies.
Trump’s Middle East goals are constantly shifting, ranging from “cutting the head off ISIS and taking their oil” to striking down the Iran nuclear deal. The constant flip-flop of the president’s Middle East agenda was a major theme from the panelists.
A further question was discussed about who is actually in charge of dealing with the region. The speakers agreed that responsibility seems to bounce between Trump, Kushner, and Tillerson while the trio fails to agree at the same time.
A modest place for the administration to begin their process of establishing solid Middle East policy requires establishing goals in the first place. Without objectives, any policy will be misguided.
Effective policy prescriptions begin with consensus between all interested parties. Trump, Kushner, Tillerson, and all relevant agencies will need to establish harmony amongst themselves before shifting their attention to the Middle East.
Trump focuses on finding a solution for Israel and Palestine, which appears to be one of his first realizations that foreign policy is, in fact, complicated. With the Middle East at large, moving one piece of the puzzle causes fifteen dominos to fall.
Yet, the age-old issue of Arab-Israeli peace has arguably been diminished and nearly left out of any conversations regarding American national security.
Talks about ISIS or nuclear proliferation normally dominate these conversations. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been ongoing for so long that instability has seemingly become the new status quo, and resolving the situation no longer takes precedence over other problems.
The Trump administration suffers from incomplete information and a prodigious inability to reach a conclusion about what needs to be done.
So, the future of the Middle East depends largely on a solid policy, but the ingredients remain up in the air. Cooperation, understanding, and objectives must be established before the Trump administration can hope to make any real difference in a long-contested region.
