US President Donald Trump during his tenure (Central 2017- January 2021) adopted a foreign policy in the Middle East that appears to be unique in practice, and his predecessor B.J. Is relatively different from Obama’s policy. Nevertheless, on closer inspection, a particular sequence seems to link the actions of the two politicians here. D. To what extent does Trump’s foreign policy, despite its ambiguity, apply to the US administration’s long-term dynamics of the Middle East?
- List. Donald Trump’s America in the Middle East: Decay or Continuation?
- Click on the thumbnail to enlarge the map. Design and Production by Amelie Andre Diplow.com
The Trump administration is taking an approach to Middle East foreign policy that differs from its predecessor in many ways. These differences are manifested by different mechanisms of tone, rhythm, and planned actions: one-sidedness of the decisions made, relative aggression, and use of force. Although there have been military attacks in Syria in particular, the changes have been particularly significant through the evolution of relations with Iran: President D.W. Trump adopts a policy of maximum pressure against Iran, where B.C. Obama used dialogue, openness and dialogue. On May 8, 2018, the United States decided to withdraw from the Vienna Convention on Iranian Nuclear Energy, which was signed in 2015, signaling the evolution of relations and the resumption of dialogue. Sanctions against Iran are then unilaterally re-established. As tensions between the two countries further escalate, the maximum pressure policy peaks in late 2019 and early 2020. Several military exchanges lead to the January 3, 2020 assassination of Iranian General Qasim Saleh Limani by the US military. These facts b. Reflecting Obama’s significant change, he focused on policy and respect for human rights in improving bilateral relations with the Middle East. The change in management therefore represents a double interpretation of the changes observed. This is really the primary choice in politics. It is “necessary” to break with the previous administration and to rebuild what it did. This explains the change in pace and method used by Trump. Then, President Trump’s aggression further deepens the duality between Republicans and Democrats, who do not follow the same approaches in terms of foreign policy. If Democrats – mostly – want to negotiate and act in a multilateral approach to agreement with a section of the United States’ allies, Republicans tend to act unilaterally, using force and intervening to act. Therefore b. This is the approach to coercion and regional administration that is different from Obama. Let us add that the character of each president is important.
Structurally, despite the change of administration, the accepted foreign policy remains the same: change is superficial and d. Related to the method, methods, and speed Trump used.
Nevertheless, beyond the obvious differences in foreign policy, D.C. A series characterizes the actions that took place in the Middle East during Trump’s presidency. Structurally, despite the change of administration, the accepted foreign policy remains the same: change is superficial and d. Related to the method, methods, and speed Trump used. Many facts are reminiscent of the White House’s long-standing policy on regional policy in the Middle East. Therefore, the United States wants to withdraw, which should be gradually excluded from the region. With this in mind, a number of actions are being taken continuously between different administrations, and testify to the continuing variability. The gradual withdrawal of troops is linked to the desire to avoid military intervention in the region. The United States, which has been at war in the Middle East for decades, will no longer take part in such acts in order to end its direct role in the war in the Middle East. This gradual decline is in response to the desire to withdraw their own terms and leave the region with “cold peace,” and the regional dynamics are managed by states close to Washington, which owns this regional group. To this end, the Abrahamic Agreements, signed on August 13, 2020, symbolize: The peace agreements signed in Washington unite the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain with Israel. They aim to normalize relations between the two countries and reflect the post-US search in the Middle East by ensuring stability between the states of the region. Finally, it is a question of strengthening bilateral relations with allies, especially Saudi Arabia and Israel. US support for Israel has also taken a step forward by making the US Embassy a symbol of Jerusalem on May 14, 2018, commemorating US support for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
However, there is a basic continuum between the various US administrations.
In a gradual shift in the regional geopolitical paradigm planned by the United States, Eurasian powers are occupying a growing place in regional dynamics. In fact, they say, “Nature hates a vacuum.” As a result, Turkey and Russia are increasingly embroiled in diplomatic and regional conflicts, indicating a strategy of influence and show of force. Their strengthened presence is evident in the various military operations undertaken by the two countries. Russia has demonstrated its military prowess and Bashar al-Assad’s support for Syria, and has been militarily high in Syria since September 2015. It has been in Iraqi Kurdistan since 2020. As for Turkey, despite being a member of NATO, it has been involved in a number of military operations against the Syrian Democratic Forces, along with rebels from the Syrian National Army. (Operation Olive Branch and Evidence for Peace), interventions condemned by the United States and France as considered dangerous to regional balance. The growing presence of these countries in diplomatic relations reflects their desire to play a key role in regional geopolitical dynamics. Russia is thus regarded as a “major power in the Middle East” (E. Burgos, C. Therm, 2018): strengthening its bilateral relations and its alliance with a number of states in the Middle East, it is becoming a regional diplomatic power. These states seem to be taking advantage of the declining US to participate in the search for peace and stability in the Middle East. Despite the limited results of this existence, the issues raised are multifaceted, particularly concerned with the change in the regional geopolitical situation, the emergence of new forces and new alliances, coupled with the decline of Western strategic interests. In fact, these actors who occupy the regional scene are at the center of a geopolitical paradigm shift.
Therefore, President D.W. If Trump’s approach to foreign policy seems to contradict his predecessor, it is very similar to the change in pace, method, and tone that reflects the internal political dynamics of the states. United. In fact, a certain continuum appears between the various administrations, which responds to the US desire to gradually withdraw from military involvement in the region in support of the regional powers of their political proximity. A key role in such progressive change is the restoration of a new geopolitical paradigm in the Middle East, where the new Eurasian powers are increasingly occupying a prominent position, both diplomatically and militarily, especially in the concerns of Turkey and Russia. From January 20, 2021, all eyes will be on the new US President Joe Biden and his approach to foreign policy, particularly towards Iran and the Middle East.
Copyright Tuesday 2021- andre/diplow.com