What Trump's reelection would mean for the Middle-East

Should Donald Trump be reelected as President of the United States, the Chinese Communist Party would try and prevent the US' pivot to the Pacific by putting pressure on core interests in the Middle-East.

Cold War 2 will only begin if Donald Trump is reelected President.

Donald Trump's 2016 election, contrary to the mainstream narrative, greatly assisted and eased tensions in the Middle-East. Donald Trump struck a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin, which saw the Syrian Arab Army destroy ISIS to the west of the Euphrates, while to the Euphrates' east in Syria and in Iraq, American, Kurdish and Iraqi forces eradicated ISIS almost completely. Following the destruction of ISIS, the Trump Administration further sought to end the Afghan war by negotiation with the Taliban and, in Europe, did little to antagonize Russia, except in leveraging sanctions.

Additionally: Donald Trump has been laser-focused on the Chinese Communist Party and on the Islamic Republic of Iran. Both nations threaten the US' core strategic interests, and with the arrival of Covid-19, relations between the US and China have been almost irreversibly damaged. With Iran, harsh US sanctions have seen the Islamic Republic challenged as never before, with protests in Lebanon and Iraq threatening to tear down the governments Iran supports.

A Joe Biden Presidency, on the other hand, would be marked by a return to the dangerous neo-liberalism of previous Presidents Barrack Obama and George W. Bush, one that saw military interventions expand into Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen and also saw antagonism with Russia reach its highest levels since the Cold War.  The antagonism with Russia culminated in the threat of a second Cuban Missile Crisis, with neo-liberal Hillary Clinton campaigning for a "no fly zone" in Syria. Had Hillary Clinton won the Presidency in 2016 and followed through on a "no fly zone," it would have resulted in the shooting down of Russian planes in Syria.

Meanwhile, under Washington neo-liberalism of the past 27 years, core US national security threats China and Iran were able to get away with murder and sanctions relief while the US was bogged down elsewhere. Joe Biden's likely loss in 2020 will come as a shock to both China and Iran, and force the nations to come to each other's aid. Earlier this year a draft of a strategic partnership was released to the international press, one likely to be implemented in the event of a Trump reelection. For a second term of the Trump Administration, a strategic partnership between Iran and China would be one of its toughest challenges.

China is so irritated by the US' pivot to the Pacific that, through its strategic partnership with Iran, it would intend to draw US attention back into the Middle-East. In Lebanon, the current regime is likely to fall and be, temporarily, replaced by a true democracy. However, shortly after this democratic regime comes to power, Hezbollah will take military control of the country. Russia would likely acquiesce to such a coup, because in exchange it could see Iran and Hezbollah leave Syria. Backed by Iran, Hezbollah's coup on Lebanon is still very risky; but with Chinese support behind Iran, democratic Lebanon would be sure to fall.

On the other hand, Iraq is safe from an Iran-China conspiracy, largely thanks to President Trump's resolute support for the country. By destroying ISIS and then going after Iran with sanctions, President Trump has shown the region that Iraq is central to American foreign policy and, in spite of the withdrawal of some US troops, the US is unlikely to leave Iraq permanently any time soon. Further: the assassination of Qassem Soleimani in January 2020 severely weakened Iran's hand in Iraq, and in the long-term a US-friendly regime is likely to be left behind in Iraq as part of President Trump's legacy.

Afghanistan, however, is very much at risk from the Iran-China strategic partnership, as Afghanistan's major borders are with Iran and China-allied Pakistan. In exchange for economic partnership, China is likely to put pressure on Iran to ditch its balanced approach in Afghanistan and unilaterally put its weight behind the Taliban. Should the Taliban join the Iran-China axis, Afghanistan would return to its worst fighting in decades, and the Taliban would march on Kabul.

For the US and Afghanistan, Iran's appointment of Esmail Qaani as new Quds Force commander ought to serve as another clear warning. Esmail Qaani has a long history of funnelling Iranian weapons for both the Afghan Taliban and government - with Iran vowing vengeance against the US for assassinating Qassem Soleimani, Qaani's predecessor, supporting the Taliban to bring down the US allied government in Kabul would be one of the easiest ways to send that message.

Should China, Iran and the Taliban destabilize Afghanistan, it is quite likely that the United States would return, and like Iraq, the US would return to stay for the long-term. However, further US interventions in the Middle-East after Iraq and Afghanistan are highly unlikely. The Trump Administration would need to retain flexibility in case China moves to invade Taiwan. Not only does this protect Iran from US invasion; it also presents China and Iran with opportunities for strategic dominance in the Arabian Gulf.

As the Trump Administration continues to withdraw from the region, rapprochement with Israel is the future security guarantee for Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. However, such rapprochement is fraught with risk, especially for Saudi Arabia, the largest Middle-Eastern nation considering Israeli ties. Such rapprochement between Iran and Israel led to the downfall of the Shah and landed Ayatollah Khomeini in charge of the nation; if China works with Iran to destabilize the Arabian Gulf, similar scenarios may play out there.

As the US withdraws, Turkey, Iran and China will be looking to increase their dominance - if Saudi Arabia erupts in civil war, the US will be too preoccupied in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Pacific to offer much assistance. Pakistan, though a longtime military ally of Saudi Arabia, is increasingly indebted to China, and might be forced to choose between the kingdom and China. For Pakistan itself, if Mohammed Bin Salman is king and makes rapprochement with Israel, that might also contribute to Pakistani neutrality in the event of a Saudi civil war.

Since the 2003 Iraq War, the Middle-East has been an unsafe and unstable place. Should Donald Trump be reelected, the Second Cold War would be lit, and Middle-East instability would be likely to get a lot worse. Worst of all: for the Middle-East, outside of Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a good chance that the Chinese will win over the Americans.

How the United States could have won the war on terror in 2003

While invading Iraq in 2003 greatly increased the threat of terrorism in the region, the only feasible option for decreasing terrorism in the region in the long-term was to weaken Iran.

While it is an exaggeration to say that Iran is the world’s number 1 sponsor of terrorism, it can certainly be said that Iran is the number 1 galvanizer of terrorism.

Without the Islamic Republic of Iran, 9-11 would have never happened. The Iranian revolution finished in February 1979 and threatened to spread the revolution elsewhere. The the first culprit of the Islamic revolution was Saudi Arabia.

9 months after the Iranian Revolution, in November 1979, extremists from within the kingdom seized the Grand Holy Mosque of Mecca and threatened to destroy it if their demands for a more Islamic country were not met. Though the extremists were executed, afterwards the kingdom underwent a conservative counterrevolution, which enabled the funding of Islamic jihad in the 1980’s and sowed the seeds for Bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda.

Though the extremists in Saudi Arabia were not politically affiliated with Iran, undoubtedly they were inspired by the Islamic revolution of Iran: either through admiration of Islamists taking control of Iran, or terrified of Iran’s Shi’a extremism and wanting a Sunni response provoked from within their own country.

What President Bush did in 2003, however, exacerbated and accelerated the increase of terrorism in the Middle-East. Instead of curbing Islamic extremism, the Iraq War empowered terrorism on both sides of the Sunni-Shi’ite spectrum, giving Iraq both Shi’a extremists and ISIS. If George Bush promised to go after terrorism, his actions in 2003 profoundly enhanced terrorism’s appeal across the Islamic world for both the Sunnis and Shi’ites.

Though going after Iraq was the worst of many bad options, going after US allies who have ties to Al-Qaeda funding would have not been much better. A conflict in the Arabian Gulf would have seriously risked instability in an area where the majority of the world’s oil comes from. For those who believe the west needs to get off oil, such an intervention might be considered necessary, but pragmatically it would have left the global economy far more vulnerable during the Great Financial Crisis than it was.

Weakening Iran in 2003, therefore, would have been the better option for ending radical Islamic terrorism’s appeal in the Middle-East. Iran has been the provocateur of extremism in US allies; it funds extremism itself and it is seeking nuclear weapons with the capacity to destroy Israel and the United States. It should not be forgotten that the national anthem of Iran is “death to America, death to Israel.” This is not hyperbole. This is the anthem of who is in charge of the most powerful country in the Middle-East.

However, weakening Iran would not mean regime change. Changing the regime in Iraq empowered extremists on both sides, and a regime change in Iran would have had a similar effect. Not only so: a US occupation of Iran’s population centres would have led to enormous amount of casualties for the US, as Iran is more politically unified than Iraq.

Instead of taking control of all of Iran, it would have been more feasible for the US to annex four provinces in Iran’s southeast, taking from Iran the Strait of Hormuz and all land crossings into Afghanistan and Pakistan. These areas are sparsely populated, which would have meant that, after a conventional war, occupation of them would have been easier even than occupying Iraq.

Better still: these provinces could be annexed from Iran and given to Afghanistan, which would mean Afghanistan would have a secure sea route that is not dominated by Russia, China or Pakistan. Such an option would have enabled Afghanistan to exploit its enormous mineral reserves much more quickly and would have connected Afghanistan to US allies in the Middle-East. This, in turn, would have allowed the Afghan war to end in a shorter amount of time.

Seeing a weaker Iran, US allies who previously funded Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan would have incentive to rebuild Afghanistan as a bulwark against Iran. A weaker Iran would have given US allies less reason to fund extremism and more assurance that their security would be looked after.