سترايجية مكافحة الفساد التي يمكن ان تنقذ الديمفراطية في العراق A Strategy for fighting corruption which could save Iraqi democracy

The following post was written by Guest Contributor, Jabbar Jaafar, President, Voices for Iraq, Washington, DC

Demonstrators demand end to corruption in front of Jawad Salim's Freedom Monument in Baghdad's Liberation Square

لا يختلف اثنان ان نظام المحاصصة الطائفية الذي تبنته الاحزاب السياسية التي حكمت العراق  بعد سقوط النظام الديكتاتوري في 2003 كان ، وراء حالة التردي والوهن التي اصابت الدولة العراقية وحولتها الى  دولة فاشلة تتعكز على نظام ديمقراطي واهن يفتقد الى معظم مقومات  واسس النظام الديمقراطي الذي تتباه الدول المتقدمة ذات النظم الديمقراطية . الديمفراطية التي أٌريدَ لها ان تكون نظام حكم نموذجي في العراق انحرفت عن مسارها حيث جردتها الاحزاب السياسية القابضة على  السلطة من محتواها وادخلت عليها مفاهيم وممارسات تتنافى ومفهوم الديمقراطية حيث جعلتها سلما تستخدمه يوم الانتخابات للوصول الى السلطة.

ان سبب تفشي حالات الفساد بكل انواعه- انتشار المحسوبية  وسرقة  المال العام والتحايل والالتفاف على القانون يعود الى وصول طبقة من الاشخاص الى  مفاصل الدولة  العليا ، من الذين جاءت بهم الاحزاب نتيجة المحاصصة الطائفية  التي افرغت النظام الديمقراطي ، الذي عٌمِلَ به بعد 2003 ، من محتواه. كان معظم هؤلاء المسؤولين  يفتقر الى النزاهة والحنكة ، او عدم الكفاءة في القيادة  ،

ولايتمتع بالمؤهلات العلمية ولا الخبرة العملية والادارية التي تؤهله لتبوأ المناصب المهمة والحساسة في ادارة الدولة. وهذا الامر ساعد على صعود طبقة (الحرافيش) التي تغلغلت في معظم دوائر الدولة بسبب المحسوبية ولقربهم من هؤلاء المسؤولين سواء كانوا وزراء ، او وكلاء وزارات ، او مدراء عامين او غيرهم في سلم المسؤولية ليشكلوا مافيات الفساد ، التي تسيطر على معظم دوائر الدولة.

ان الفساد هو أشبه بورم خبيث لايمكن علاجه الا من خلال اتباع عدة مراحل من العلاج لاجل القضاء عليه ، وليس باجراء واحد اي بوصفة واحدة كما هو الحال مع الامراض السائدة التي تصيب بني البشر. واولى مراحل العلاج تبدأ باستئصال الورم ثم يتبعها اخضاع المريض الى الاشعاع ، لتأتي المرحلة الاخيرة وهي  العلاج الكيمياوي ( الكيموثربي). اذن عملية  التخلص من هذا الورم الخبيث لاتتم بأجراء واحد بل بعدة اجراءات.

ونفس الشئ  ، مع الفارق ،  ينطبق على سرطان الفساد الذي اصاب الجسم العراقي وانهكه حيث لايمكن علاجه بوصفة واحدة بل لابد ان يتم العلاج بمراحل. ان استفحال مرض الفساد  الذي بدأ يتحول الى ثقافة تتجذر في المجتمع كلما مرت الايام والشهور لايمكن علاجه بمرحلة واحدة. طالما هناك فئات مستفيدة مستمرة بالترويج لهذه الثقافة التي تتنافى وكل القيم والاعراف السائدة ، من خلال ايجاد تبريرات واهية واحيانا الاستعانة ببعض ممن يدعون رجال دين من الذين ركبوا الموجة واستغلوا الدين لتنفيذ ماربهم الشخصية .

وهذا يتم من خلال ايجاد التبريرات اللامنطقية لاعمال الفساد السائدة في المجتمع. واذا ما اردنا استئصال الفساد بشكل نهائي ، ما علينا الا وضع ستراتيجية تشتمل على عدة اجراءات يتم تنفيذها وفق مراحل لحين وصول الهدف الذي يقضي بالتخلص من هذه الافة المدمرة. وتتضمن المرحلة الاولى ، اطلاق حملة توعية شعبية من اجل تنبيه عامة الناس الى خطورة الافكار، والاراء التي تروج للفساد وتبرر الممارسات التي تنطوي على سرقة المال العام وتفنيدها ، واعتباره عملا مشينا ترفضه كافة الاديان ويتنافى ومنظومة الاخلاق الانسانية. ومن المهم ايصال رسائل واضحة ومباشرة الى  المواطنين  تلفت انتباههم الى ان محاولة  التغطية او السكوت على الفساد بكل انواعه ، خطأ كبير ادى وسيؤدي الى نتائج كارثية  في كافة مناحي الحياة.  ولكي تجد تلك الرسائل  اذانا صاغية من قبل العامة  يجب ان  تُكتَب بلغة بسيطة ومفهومة تحاكي القيم التي يحملونها ، وتحاكي مصالحهم ،  واخلاقهم واحتياجاتهم النفسية والاقتصادية . 

ان الغاية من هذه الرسائل هي تغيير سلوكية وطريقة تفكير افراد المجتمع وجعلهم يتخذون موقفا حاسما ضد كل ما من شأنه يشكل ضررا للمجتمع  لتعم الفائدة على الجميع. يعتقد احد الباحثين في مجال الاتصال ان الناس  لايتفاعلون او يستجيبون للرسائل الموجهة لهم الا اذا كانت تركز على احتياجتهم او مصالحهم او همومهم. من الضروي ان يدرك الجميع  ان كل واحد منهم لن يسلم من تداعيات الفساد ،

وانه يدفع الثمن وافراد اسرته بشكل مباشر اوغير مباشر. لابد ان يدرك المواطن ان احد اسباب تدهور التعليم هو الفساد ، وان غياب الامن وازهاق ارواح الاف الابرياء بسبب الخروقات الامنية ، سببه الفساد ، وان تدهور قطاع الصحة وتفشي الامراض سببه الفساد ، ورداءة الحصة التمونية سببه الفساد وسوء الخدمات البلدية وعدم انتظام المنظومة الكهربائية سببه الفساد ، وتلوث البيئة ورداءة الماء الصالح للشرب ، سببه الفساد وعدم وصول النائب المناسب الى البرلمان ليدافع عن حقوق ومطالب ناخبيه المشروعة

ويشارك بتشريع القوانين التي تخدم المواطن سببه الفساد واشياء كثيرة عندما تدقق بالاسباب التي ادت الى وقوعها  ترى ان الفساد - السياسي اوالاداري او المالي - احد اسبابها  ومنها تَغلغُل الارهاب في المحافظات وسقوط بعضها بيد داعش وتهجير السكان لاسباب طائفية او عرقية.

من هنا يكون واجبنا اقناع المواطن العراقي على ان كل ما يتعرض له الوطن والمواطن ، من ويلات ومصائب يرجع سببه الى نوع من انواع الفساد. يقول احد الباحثين في مجال الاتصال ان مايدفع  الناس الى الاهتمام او الانغماس في قضية ما او الانصات الى الرسالة الموجه لهم هو فقط عىدما يرونها تحاكي احتياجتهم النفسية والاقتصادية او تبدد مخاوفهم. ويرى فيستنر في نطريته "التنافر المعرفي " ان الناس لا يؤمنون بالرسائل التي تتعارض وميلوهم مالم يتمكن صاحب الرسالة من تقديم معلومات تزعزع ثقتهم بما يعتقدون به.

بما ان الفساد اصبح ظاهرة  خطيرة  تجتاح العراق وتهدد الديمقراطية الوليدة فيه حيث ان جذورها بدأت تتأصل في المجتمع العراقي ، فقد باتت  الحاجة ملحة لوضع منهاج تعليمي لكل مراحل الدراسة يتناول ، موضوع الفساد بكافة انواعه وتداعياته من حيث تاثيره المباشر على المجتمع ووسائل معالجته وبيان موقف الاديان السماوية من هذه الظاهرة الهدامة. ويمكن  توجيه رسائل للمجتمع من خلال بث واذاعة البرامج المتتنوعة التي تثير اهتمام الجمهور.

وعقد ندوات لقادة المجتمع واصحاب الفكر والرأي لكي يسلطوا الضوء على الاثار المدمرة لافة الفساد وضرورة تسليط الضوء على الشباب والعمل على اشراكهم في هذه البرامج لان شريحة الشباب شريحه مهمة وعنصر حيوي من عناصر التغيير في المجتمع.

يعتبر اشراك المجتمع في ستراتيجية مكافحة الفساد امرا مهما ، لان  الاجهزة الرقابية التي لم  تصبها جرثومة الفساد قد لا تكفي ، مهما بلغ عددها ، من اجل السيطرة او متابعة المفسدين. ان كل مواطن يمكن ان يكون عينا للرقيب او رقيبا اذا ما مارس دوره كما  ينبغي لانه المتضرر الاول والاخير من الفساد. وهنا  نكون قد انجزنا اهم مرحلة من مراحل ستراتيجيتنا لمحاربة الفساد وهي توعية  المجتمع. والجميع  هنا مطالبون بالاشتراك  في حملة  التوعية من سياسيين واعلاميين وفنانيين ورجال دين ومعلمين واساتذة الجامعات والطلاب وشرائح الشباب  وكل من موقعه من اجل  حث وتشجيع المواطن على المساهمة الفعالة في الحملة الهادفة الى تطهير المجتمع من وباء الفساد.

اما المرحلة الاخرى  فتتعلق بصياغة وتشريع القوانين التي تحد من الفساد العام من خلال تجريم المفسدين واحالتهم الى القضاء بغض النظر عن المنصب اوالمكانة الاجتماعية التي يحتلونها ، على ان يتعدى ذلك الى المواطن اوالمؤسسة او الشركة التي  تشترك في عملية الفساد من خلال دفع الرشى والعمولات الكبيرة لتسيير او تنفيذ اعمالها بشكل غير قانوني .

ان الهدف من ذلك هو تحقيق العدالة وجعلها سيفا مسلطا على رقاب المفسدين اينما ومهما كانوا وان لا احدا فوق القانون . وهناك خطوة  اساسية ينبغي اتخاذها الا وهي اعداد وتهيئة الكوادر القانونية المستقلة والكفوءة من اجل تطبيق القوانين لان القانون لايطبق نفسه بنفسه بل يحتاج الى كادر قانوني متمرس ،

ونزيه وغير منحاز بدأ من القضاة الى المحقيقين العدليين ، الى المشاورين القانونيين الى اصغر موظف في هيثة القضاء. على ان تتزامن مع مرحلة  اعداد وتهيئة الكادر، عملية تنظيف لجهاز القضاء من المفسدين سواء اكانوا قضاة او كوادر تحقيقية او ادارية لان القوانين تبقى مركونة على الرف ما لم يأتي كادر متحمس ونظيف يعمل على تطبيقها.

ويمكن الاستفادة من هيئة النزاهة لتنفيذ ستراتيجية مكافحة الفساد بعد ان تتم اعادة هيكلتها ونقل كافة الكوادر التي جاء بها نظام المحاصصة الطائفي والحزبي ممن لايمتلكون المؤهلات المهنية والعلمية التي  تساعد على بقائهم للعمل في الهيئة ،

والبحث عن الكفاءات الشابة والنزيهه من حَمَلَة الشهادات الجامعية لانتدابهم للعمل في الهيئة بعد ان يتم اشراكهم في دورات تدريبية مكثفة من اجل اعدادهم اعدادا جيدا لممارسة مهام عملهم  بشكل صحيح. اما المفتشين الذين يتوزعون على الدوائر الحكومية فيجب فك ارتباطهم من دوائرهم واعادة ربطهم بهيئة النزاهة مباشرة  من  اجل  مراقبة ادائهم بشكل مستمر لان بعضهم قد يكون تورط بشكل مباشر او غير مباشر  ببعض اعمال الفساد التي تديرها شبكات الفساد التي تسيطر على الدوائر الحكومية ، او احيانا عدم قدرته على مواجهة الوزير او رئيس الدائرة فيكون حاله حال اي موظف عادي ليس له اي تأثير على مجريات الامور.

. وبعد اتمام هذه المرحلة ننتقل الى المرحلة الاخرى  وهي انشاء جهاز امني خاص  بهيئة النزاهة يرتبط برئيس 

وبعد اتمام هذه المرحلة ننتقل الى المرحلة الاخرى  وهي انشاء جهاز امني

خاص  بهيئة النزاهة يرتبط برئيس الهيئة  مباشرة من اجل  ملاحقة المتورطين بالفساد ممن صدرت بحقهم اوامر قبض من قبل قاضي تحقيق خاص يرتبط ارتباطا مباشرا بهيئة النزاهة. أن التطبيق الفعلي للقانون لابد ان يتم من اجل ان تأخذ العدالة  مجراها  ولابد من احالة  السياسيين الذين تورطوا بقضايا فساد او من اللذين تحوم حولهم الشبهات الى  القضاء لينالوا جزائهم العادل.

ان ستراتيجية مكافحة الارهاب يجب ان  لا تقتصر على المسؤولين العراقيين او الشركات العراقية بل يتعداه الى  الشركات العالمية العاملة في العراق ، والتي قد ترتكب مخالفات تنطوي على حالات مختلفة من حالات الفساد ، فمن اجل ضبط ادائها ومراقبة ممارساتها ينبغي للبرلمان العراق ان يسن قانونا اشبه

 بالقانون الامريكي لمكافحة ممارسات الفساد الخارجية  FCPA وهو قانون سنه الكونغرس عام 1977 والذي يحظر فيه دفع اواخذ الرشى من الشركات الدولية والمسؤولين الاجانب العاملين في الولايات المتحدة. وبموجب هذا القانون يتوجب على هذه الشركات المحافظة على مستوى عالي من الاداء المحاسبي من خلال وجود سجلات مالية وتجارية  دقيقة.

ويمكن للولايات المتحدة ، الحليف الرئيس للعراق ، ان تساهم في حملة  محاربة الفساد من خلال متابعة المنظمات العاملة في العراق على اختلاف انواعها وما تقوم به من نشاطات وبرامج داخل العراق الغاية منها نشر الوعي ودعم وتثبيت الديمقراطية وحل النزاعات وتعزيز ثقافة التسامح . منذ 2003 ولحد الان مليارات الدولارات انفقتها الادارات الامريكية المتعاقبة على برامج  لم تحقق الغاية المرجوة وهي التغيير الايجابي في سلوكية المواطن العراقي  ودوره في دعم الديمقراطية من خلال المشاركة الفعالة في النشاطات التي ترسخ دعائمها ومعرفة حقوق وواجبات المواطنة  في المجتمع الديمقراطي. مازال المواطن لا يعرف حقوقه التي نص عليها الدستور والدليل على ذلك مرت ثلاث دورات انتخابية في 2006 و2010 و2014

ومازال المواطن لا يعرف كيف يمارس حقوقة وواجباته التي نص عليها الدستور ، مازال يسكت عن الممارسات والاخطاء القاتلة التي ارتكبتها وترتكبها نفس الاحزاب  السياسية التي اوصلها للحكم والتي فشلت فشلا ذريعا في ادارة الحكم في العراق كونها استخدمت نظام المحاصصة الطائفية الذي جلب الكوارث للعراق و تسبب بكل مشاكله السياسية والاجتماعية والاقتصادية.

Donald Trump's Trip to the Middle East: Bold Policy Initiatives, Diplomatic Theater or Family Business?

Trump and Saudi King Salam at GCC Summit, Riyadh, May 21st, 2017

Having returned from his first trip abroad, what exactly did Donald Trump accomplish on his visit to the Middle East?  Can we expect new policy initiatives?  Or was Trump’s trip more about image than substance?  In an area that has not received as much attention, what role did the trip play in promoting Trump Inc., namely the president and his immediate family's business interests?

Map of Trump trip to ME & Europe

Trump’s trip to Saudi Arabia and Israel, followed by a visit to the Vatican, was, on its face, a smart diplomatic move.  Visiting the most holy sites of all 3 Abrahamic faiths sent a message that each one is important to the US.  Further, Trump’s speech in Saudi Arabia, in which he referred to Islam as one of the world’s great religions, avoided the offensive comments on Islam which characterized his presidential campaign.

Trump’s call for Muslim majority countries to fight extremism delivered an important message, especially in Saudi Arabia.  The Saudi monarchy has been guilty of using its extensive oil wealth to promote extremism throughout the world, by exporting its Wahhabi ideology which fosters hatred of Christians, Shi’a, Jews, and Sufis, and the oppression of women. 

In a May 27^th tweet, Trump boasted that he was “Bringing hundreds of billions of dollars back to the U.S.A. from the Middle East - which will mean JOBS, JOBS, JOBS!”  After 2 days in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, Trump predicted that, “many, many things that can happen [in the Middle East] now that would never been able to happen before.”  

During his trip, Trump also noted, "We have before us a rare opportunity to bring security and stability and peace to this region and to its people." (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/22/trump-begins-israeli-visit-with-levity-238662).  On the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, Trump noted that the crisis is “not as difficult as people have thought over the years.” 

So what exactly was accomplished?  Clearly, US companies benefitted from a large number of arms sales and military infrastructure projects in Saudi Arabia.  Deals signed with General Electric and Lockheed Martin were part of a larger package of contracts with American corporations amounting to an estimated $110 billion.  The White House indicated that the new contracts would provide Saudi Arabia with fighter jets, radar, and anti-missile defense systems.

Whether Saudi Arabia, the 5^th largest arms purchaser in the world, needs to upgrade its defense capability to the tune of $110 billion is doubtful.  Many see Saudi purchases as a way of bribing the US to support it in its regional Cold War with Iran and increasing its influence in Washington.  

King Salman awarding Trump the Collar of Abdulaziz Al Saud

Awarding Trump the kingdom’s highest order, the Collar of Abdulaziz Al Saud, during the trip was bizarre given his June 2016 Facebook comments that Saudi Arabia wants “women as slaves and to kill gays,”  (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/05/19/trump-once-denounced-saudi-arabia-as-extremist-now-hes-heading-there-to-promote-moderate-islam/?utm_term=.e4483739906f), and criticism of the Clinton Foundation for accepting money “from such countries" (http://time.com/4785714/donald-trump-saudi-arabia/).

One of the more innovative and less reported results of the trip was the discussions between Stephen A. Schwartzman, head of the Blackstone Group who was appointed chair of the White House Strategic and Policy Forum, and the Saudi deputy crown Prince, Muhammad bin Salman, head of the Saudi Public Investment Fund.  Although Schwarzman’s contacts with Saudi Arabia began 13 months ago, they are just bearing fruit now.

The Saudis have promised to invest $20 billion in US infrastructure projects, including roads, ports, and bridges.  This investment could be a boon to the US economy, even if some have raised questions about foreign governments profiting from public projects.  Private equity infrastructure investment is a growing sector of the global economy (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/business/dealbook/saudi-arabia-to-invest-20-billion-in-infrastructure-mostly-in-us.html)

(https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-05-22/saudi-arabia-could-invest-20-billion-us-infrastructure-its-not-necessarily-win) (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/25/business/dealbook/blackstone-saudi-arabia-investments-infrastructure.html)

Saudi investment in US infrastructure projects can potentially help upgrade a wide variety of aging bridges, airports, roads and pipelines (and hopefully rail lines as well).  The ability of Saudi Arabia to diversify its economy is also in the US’ national interest. 

First, diversification places the Saudi economy on a stronger footing  by reducing dependence on oil.  Second, it encourages the growth of the private sector, opening up economic opportunity to large numbers of Saudis beyond the royal family.  Third, it reduces the inefficiency of the public sector where Saudis have enjoyed jobs requiring few hours of work and little expertise.  Now that has all changed as state employees are required to work more hours and develop meaningful skills.

Diversification also suggests important social change. Women’s position in Saudi society has been and will continue to improve.  As the economy moves from total reliance on a top heavy capital intensive oil sector – one which offers limited jobs - to a more labor intensive private sector, women will be increasing needed to fill white collar jobs associated with new state and private enterprises.

Wahhabis forces in Saudi society are already finding themselves under stress.  

Ironically, the Saudi oil industry which created strong economic ties to the West, fostered the alliance between ultra-conservative Wahhabi clerics and the monarchy.  Now that more human resources are needed in a diversified economy, the old rules will no longer work and Wahhabi influence can be predicted to decline.

To the extent that Trump’s visit help promotes these trends, it was a success.  A Saudi Arabia which finally engages in serious modernization – meaning human rights for women and opening economic opportunities for youth who are not part of the royal family, just to mention 2 such processes – will become a better society and less prone to promote extremism.

At the same time, Trump’s vigorous criticism of Iran, both before his visit and while he was in the kingdom, thrilled his Saudi hosts.  After the Bush and Obama administrations, they finally have an American president who supports their camp in the Cold War between Saudi Arabia and Iran.  Such unabashed support for the Saudi monarchy will not lead to positive change in the areas of the treatment of political dissidents and the country’s Shi’a minority .

Trump’s unequivocal support for the Saudi monarchy has been criticized by many analysts because it places the US squarely in the camp of Sunni extremists against the Shi’a of Iran.  While no analysts have any illusions about the goals of the Islamic Republic in the larger Middle East, none thinks stability can be achieved in the region by ignoring Iran. (And ironically, US contracts with Iran continue to be signed, the Trump administration'sd rhetoric notwithstanding).

Trump's unabated hostility towards Teheran may please the Saudi monarchy but will be counter-productive in the long term.  US policy offers Saudi Arabia unqualified support for its war in Yemen – a war which is producing disastrous outcomes - based on the dubious assumption that their Houthi adversaries are Iranian proxies. This policy constitutes just one example of the problems a one-sided US approach in the Middle East can create.

Trump and Netanyahu

In Israel, Trump likewise received an enthusiastic welcome, despite the fact that Prime Minister Netanyahu was forced to scold ministers who had threatened not to receive the US president upon his arrival in Tel Aviv.  Soon Trump and Netanyahu were referring to each other on a first name basis.

Despite assurances about solving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, Trump did nothing to pressure Netanyahu to reassert Israel’s support for a two state solution to the crisis or to slow down settlement construction.  While an agreement has eluded US administrations for decades, Trump declared it a task that would be “not as difficult as people have thought over the years.”   Nevertheless, the Trump administration has yet to commit itself to supporting the two-state solution that has been a bedrock of U.S. policy.

The only bump in the road during his visit to Israel was Trump’s failure to raise the issue of his campaign promise to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.  Some in Israel see this as an effort to hold the move in abeyance until Israel agrees to a deal with the Palestinians.

Trump and Abbas in Bethlehem

Trump’s visit with Palestine National Authority President Mahmud Abbas was designed to send a message that the US considers him an equal partner to Israel.  However, not much was accomplished during their 1 hour meeting in Bethlehem.  Further, Trump offered no specifics on what the “deal” he would conclude between Israel and the Palestinians would look like.

Summing up Trump’s Middle East visit from a policy standpoint, it comes up short.  Yes, Trump did reassert strong US support for Saudi Arabia and Israel.  He did suggest that the meeting of Sunni Muslim leaders in Riyadh could become the foundation for an “Arab NATO.” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/05/17/trump-to-unveil-plans-for-an-arab-nato-in-saudi-arabia/?utm_term=.6b3bae20f48c). But on specifics, the only concrete results were in contracts signed for new business deals between the US and Saudi Arabia (although it has long been known that Trump seeks greater personal commercial ties with Israel where he has sought to build a high rise tower in Tel Aviv for years).

Long on rhetoric and symbols, but devoid of new and substantive policy initiatives, how can Trump’s visit to the Middle East be assessed? An important component to add to the outcome of the trip is the new commercial deals’ impact on the Trump family fortunes.

Trump’s ban on immigrants from Muslim-majority has been a staple of US media reporting since he became president last January.  However, two counties which have been accused of supporting terrorism – Turkey and Saudi Arabia - were not included in the ban.  Trump himself has business interests in several Muslim countries, which include Turkey, Egypt, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Indonesia. (He has 4 companies in Israel but all registered in Delaware).

While Trump seems unable to engage in detailed reviews of domestic or foreign policy, he does seem to have a canny sense of what constitutes a good investment opportunity.  His comment to Belgium’s prime minister that his view of Europe and the EU was formed by his efforts to build golf courses there suggests that he views the world not through the traditional policy-maker’s eyes but rather through the eyes of a business man (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/26/donald-trump-complained-belgian-pm-difficulty-golf-resorts-eu).  

Is it a coincidence Trump lauds autocrats in countries – Turkey, Egypt, Qatar, Russia and the Philippines, just to give a few examples – in which Trump enterprises have business interests?  Is Trump really disposed towards authoritarianism or is his world-view really one of a businessman who now occupies the most powerful position in the world?  Are his interests those of the American people or those promoting his family’s business interests, both now and after he leaves office?

Following the effusive praise for the autocratic Saudi monarchy and the right-wing Netanyahu government, which has enables increased settlement construction in the West Bank to appropriate ever more Palestinian land, Trump attended a NATO meeting where he scolded the US’ long-time European allies.  While his call for NATO partners to all meet the 2% threshold in defense spending required by the NATO treaty was reasonable, the tone of his rebuke of our staunchest allies, a rebuke offered in public, constituted an affront to the alliance. 

The contrast between his support for an “Arab NATO,” and his disdain for NATO and refusal to commit the US to Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, where an attack on any one member is considered an attack on all, undermined the organization. Certainly, this meeting was welcomed by Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin leadership.

These considerations are disturbing.  Trump's trip to the Middle East (and Europe) is not reassuirng. It implies that the day-to-day slogging through the details of complex foreign policy issues have and no doubt will continue to receive short-shrift by the president. 

What is further disturbing is the lack of any substance or any long-term vision in Trump’s foreign policy (or the lack of one).  Human rights and autocratic rule are no longer at the core of US foreign policy.  Autocrats who cosy up to Trump have a green light to continue their oppressive rule. However, associating the behavior of authoritarian regimes with support by the US is a policy that will come back to haunt us in the future. 

While the courts have tried to keep Trump's extra-constitutional behavior in check, few Republicans - who control both houses of Congress - have criticized him for the lack of coherence of his foreign policy stances and his support for authoritarian rule.  Only Senators  John McCain and Lindsey Graham have had the courage to stand up to Trump.

Trump, al-Sisi and Salman at opening of Saudi counter-terrorism center 

When the Egypian parliament passed a law in Novermber 2016 outlawing virtually all foreign aid organizations and placing all civil society organizations under state cointrol, McCain and Graham threatened to withhold $1.3 billion in US aid to Egypt.  However, after Trump's meeting with Egyptian autocrat, General And al-Fattah al-Sisi, at the White House, and then again during the Arab summit in Saudi Arabia, al-Sisi decided to sign the bill, assured of no reprisal by the US (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/world/middleeast/egypt-sisi-ngo-crackdown-activists.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fmiddleeast).  

In a world where alliances such as NATO are threatened, where Russia continues to interfere in the internal politics of Western democracies, where terrorism is a major global threat, and global income inequality is rising, along with environmental and economic problems caused by climate change, we need a "hands on" POTUS, rather than one who seems more interested in attacking real or imagined enemies, and engaging in spectacle rather than substantive policy-making.

Who will hold Trump's feet to the fire and force him to take foreign policy seriously?  Who will tell the US president that foreign policy is more than just the sale of material objects, such as "the purchase of lots of beautiful military equipment because nobody makes it like the United States," the theme of Trump's talks with the Amir of Qatar?  Will Trump learn on the job or continue to engage in policy-making "on the fly"?

The Mosul End Game: A New Beginning for Iraq or a “Perfect Storm” for Renewed Sectarian Conflict?

Nuri al-Maliki meets with Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, 2014

How will the impact of the Islamic State’s defeat in Mosul impact Iraq?  Will the so-called Islamic State’s expulsion from the city offer a reset for Iraqi politics or will it result in a new wave of sectarianism?  Unfortunately, current political and economic conditions do not bode well for a post-Mosul Iraq.

Many of the problems facing a post-Da^cish Iraq have been created by former Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.  As is well known, Maliki’s sectarian policies during his second term as prime minister, from 2010 until he was removed in 2014, alienated Iraq’s Sunni Arab population (and Iraq’s Kurds)  It largely explains why large segments of Mosul’s populace was initially sympathetic to the Islamic State when they seized the city in June 2014.

The Iraq Army’s heroic efforts, backed by KRG Peshmerga and Federal Police, in liberating Mosul are on the verge of being undermined by political machinations in Baghdad.  These involve the complicity of the Iranian government as is works behind the scene to establish a dominant political position in Iraq.  Nuri al-Maliki has facilitated the expansion of Iranian influence as part of his effort to return to power. http://orient-news.net/ar/news_show/135956/0/%D8%A5%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D9%8A-%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%AA%D8%B5%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF-%D8%A8%D9%86-%D8%B3%D9%84%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86   He has been helped in this process by the squabbling among the Sunni political elite in Ninawa and al-Anbar provinces and political dysfunction in the KRG.

When Iraq’s declining oil revenues are added to this toxic mix, the enormous funds needed to rebuild Mosul and Anbar cities are already a serious problem.  Complaints by Anbaris that promised reconstruction funds haven’t been forthcoming, accompanied by accusations that some funds have been stolen by corrupt politicians, don’t auger well for the future.  With Maliki having effectively blocked all efforts at reform, Prime Minister Hayder al-Abadi's power is waning as he loses influence to Maliki and his Iranian allies.

While the Obama administration never considered Iraq a major foreign power priority, at least there was an effort to counter sectarianism and sustain some “soft power” policies, e.g., USAID and State Department funded education projects. The Trump administration’s lack of interest in Iraq, beyond the military struggle against the Da^cish, signals to Iran and its Iraqi minions – Maliki and the militias Iran funds – that they have a carte blanche moving forward to pursue sectarian policies. 

Because there are few forces working to prevent the spreads of sectarian tensions, Iraq is ripe for more instability.  In this context, terrorist forces will still find fertile soil for continued recruitment of disaffected elements of Iraqi society.  Thus we can predict the continued strength of terrorist forces in Iraq who will exploit the rise in sectarianism.

Terrorist activity will be reflected in continued suicide bombings in Iraqi cities, targeted killings of Shi’a and secular forces, especially Baghdad, guerilla attacks on the police stations, military bases and government agencies, and efforts to recruit disaffected Sunni Arabs.  Continued political instability will be fostered by state-sponsored corruption and the lack of improvement of social services.

Since the beginning of its attack on Mosul during the fall of 2016, the Iraqi Army has developed significant social and political capital in Mosul, and throughout Iraq, as a result of its efforts to mitigate civilian casualties - thereby increasing its own losses - providing of food and medicine to Mosul inhabitants, and treating inhabitants of liberated areas with respect.  A comprehensive national reconciliation strategy is needed to insure the defeat of the Da^cish in Mosul is not followed by a revival of the Da^cish.

Qais al-Khazzali

Meanwhile, Nuri al-Maliki has attempted to position himself to return to power through strengthening his ties to Iran and the militias it supports, namely those led by Hadi al-Amiri, Qais al-Khazzali and Abu Mahdi Muhandis (http://www.niqash.org/en/articles/politics/5367/). He also has built a strong financial network, likewise dependent on ties to Iran. (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/former-iraqi-pm-nouri-al-maliki-allegedly-siphoned-off-500bn-8-years-1526096)

As oil prices decline, patron-client relations have been damaged. Maliki’s ability to offer politicians financial opportunities linked to Iran provides another sources of funding while forging closer bonds with the Islamic Republic, while creating an extensive patron-client network in Iraq.  While Prime Minister, Maliki privileged Iranian economic and commercial interests in Iraq.  For example, he did nothing to protect Iraqi agriculture. 

al-Maliki with Abu Mahdi Muhandis and Hadi al-Amiri

Already weakened by the UN sanctions of the 1990s and the complete neglect by Saddam Hussein’s regime, Iraq’s agrarian sector was in a downward spiral even before the US invasion.  Once the US Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) foolishly removed subsidies for Iraqi agriculture in August 2003, using the argument that the state has no business subsidizing agriculture (a remarkable assumption given the extensive subsidies of American farmers by the US government), Iraqi agriculture was unable to compete with Syrian and especially Iranian imports of frutis and vegetables.

While prime minister, questions were often raised as to why Maliki would favor Iranian imports over Iraqi products.  One area was in the production of kiln fired bricks used in construction, an industry whose origins in Iraq can be traced to ancient times.  Nevertheless, Maliki ordered Iranian bricks and seriously undercutting the economic viability of Iraqi brick production.  In retrospect, it is clear that Maliki was already developing his economic ties to Iran. 

Although Maliki has been in the forefront of Shi^ca politicians pushing de-Ba^cthification, he has concentrated on former Ba^cthists he considers his enemies, while making alliance with other Ba^cthists when he finds such alliances convenient. Thus his sectarian policies are clearly instrumental and designed to promote his political and financial interests.

Estimates are that he diverted over $500 billion while prime minister between 2006 and 2014 (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/former-iraqi-pm-nouri-al-maliki-allegedly-siphoned-off-500bn-8-years-1526096).  Thus it is not unlikely that reports that he is worth $40 billion are true Iraqi former PM Nouri al-Maliki's wealth is estimated at $40 billion are true.

Sources have revealed that Maliki made his wealth through manipulating the Iraq Central Bank's accounts as well as engaging in shady projects inside and outside Iraq. (http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2017/03/corrupt-disgusting-nouri-al-maliki.html).  Indeed, one source places Maliki’s among of the 10 richest people in the world (http://waarmedia.com/english/maliki-among-10-richest-people-in-world/), along with his son Ahmad  who purchased the most expensive resident in the world near Paris for $301 million in 2016 (https://search4dinar.wordpress.com/2016/02/01/the-independent-ahmed-nouri-al-maliki-bought-the-most-expensive-house-in-the-world-b301-million/comment-page-1/).  All this wealth is thanks to Maliki being chosen by the Bush administration – despite advice against it by many of President Bush’s advisors - to become prime minister in 2006.

The 50,000 sq. ft. estate of Ahmad Nuir al-Maliki near Paris

Maliki’s sectarian policies were bad enough when he was prime minister.  However, Iraq cannot afford another body blow after the Da^cish is finally expelled from Mosul, and Ninawa and al-Anbar provinces.  First, the costs of rebuilding Mosul, Falluja, Ramadi and other cities and towns are already beyond Iraq's capacity to fund.  Nevertheless, state corruption continues unabated.  Iraq cannot afford to lose any funds it is able to mobilize for the reconstruction effort.

Second, the populaces of Da^cish occupied areas have experienced significant trauma.  Iraq does not have the psychological personnel and agencies to treat even a fraction of those who suffer from a wide variety of problems such as PTSD.  If the Federal Government in Baghdad fails to promote national reconciliation, the job of addressing the psychological problems of those in areas liberated from the Da^cish will be made all the more difficult.

Third, the entire education system in areas formerly controlled by the Da^cish needs rebuilding, not just materially but in terms of a curriculum which will promote national reconciliation.  Teachers need new texts and lesson plans to address the ambiguity, lack of trust, and fear of what the future may bring among their students.  Efforts to promote trust and reconciliation will fall flat if the Federal Government is promoting national policies which are fundamentally sectarian.  

Perhaps most important is creating new jobs for displaced persons, many of whom have no place of employment to which to return. Thousands of small businesses have been destroyed, depriving many Iraqis of work in areas formally controlled by the Islamic State.

Highway 1 - Baghdad-Amman

The hand of al-Maliki can be seen in the opposition to an American firm, the Olive Group, repairing and operating Highway 1, which runs] from Baghdad to Amman through al-Anbar Province.  The new project would make the highway a toil road and prtoivide security along the artery.  In earlier, more peaceful times, the highway generated $1 billion per month in cargo revenues (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/27/world/middleeast/iraqi-toll-road-national-highway-iran.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fworld&action=click&contentCollection=world&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront).  

However, Iran has mobilized its political supporters, including the militias it funds, to oppose the project which would create thousands of construction jobs to al-Anbar.  Iran is concerned that the 25 year concession awarded by the al-Abadi government will give the United States too much influence in Iraq.  Abadi sees the project as one which will help economic development, while entailing no cost to Iraq.  The Highway 1 Project is just one of many indicators of how sectarian politics undermines Iraq’s economic growth and political stability.

Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr

Are there political forces in Iraq which can prevent Maliki from promoting his sectarian agenda?  The coalition which Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr controls, the Sadrist Trend, is the only powerful movement opposed to Maliki and his State of Law Coalition.  Sadr has positioned himself as an Iraqi nationalist and has reached out to Sunni Arabs and secular Shi’a, as well as the .lower classes which form the social base of his movement.  However, Sadr does not have the backing of Iran or much of the political elite (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2017/0503/Moqtada-al-Sadr-In-Iraq-a-fiery-cleric-redefines-himself-as-nationalist-patriot).

What is desparately needed is a national dialogue on national reconciliation.  A national conference which brings together politicians, clerics, civil society activists, academics, youth, and tribal leaders is critical to reestablishing the trust needed to rebuild Iraq.  Such a conference would send an important symbolic message to all segments of Iraq society that a new sociopolitical model is on the political agenda.

Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster

Does the Trump administration have an interest in urging the Iraqi government to pursue a national reconciliation agenda?  Whether Trump himself is aware of or willing to urge the Iraqi government in such a direction is unclear.  However,  one member of his security team, National Security Adviser, Lt. Gen H.C. McMaster, certainly understands the critical need to not see the military defeat of the IS in Mosul become the end of US involvement in Iraq.

Hopefully, McMaster will educate Trump how to avoid snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The Bush administration was culpable in creating politail instability through the counter-productive polices it followed after the overthrow of Saddam Husayn.  For its part, the Obama administration was guilty of neglect.  

It’s time for the United States to pursue a policy in Iraq which will help Iraq produce a positive outcome.  The military defeat of the Islamic State offers such an opportunity.  Is the Trump administration up to the task?

Donald Trump and the Middle East: the First 100 Days

As Donald Trump reaches his first 100 days in office, the verdict on his domestic accomplishments is in.  Aside from a dramatic rise in the value of equity markets, a development last seen in the 1980s, his accomplishments are largely limited to a set of Executive Decrees.  Two of the most important, his attempt to bar immigration by Muslims to the US, and his effort to punish sanctuary cities by depriving them of federal funds, have been halted by federal judges.

Trump has caused a furor with his attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), severely curtail environmental regulations, end federal funding for Planned Parenthood and women’s health services, eliminate funding for a wide variety of critical services for small communities, transfer huge amounts of wealth to the rich and avoid complying with federal ethics laws.

Much less attention has been directed at the first 100 days of Trump’s foreign policy.  Has he been more successful here or does he fall short along with his domestic policy?  What has he accomplished in the Middle East, the most unstable and volatile area of the world?

There are 3 categories which can be used to measure what Trump has accomplished in the Middle East.  First, what appointments has he made and what are the quality of those appointments?

Second, what actions has he taken regarding the major problems facing the region, such as terrorism, the Syrian civil war, the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, Turkey’s move towards authoritarian rule, and the Saudi-Houthi war in Yemen, just to name some of the most prominent issues?

Third, has Trump formulated the beginnings of a coherent policy towards the MENA region?  Has he largely pursuing the foreign policy of his predecessor, Barack Obama, or has he struck out in new directions?  Or is Trump’s policy unclear?

APPOINTMENTS

The record on appointments indicates mixed results on the Middle East.  There is no question that replacing former National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, currently under criminal investigation for not reporting fees he received from the Russian government, was a positive step.  Flynn, who is known for his caustic rhetoric and “shoot from the hip” policy style, was a poor choice for NSA, especially regarding a complex region such as the Middle East.

Lt. General H.R. McMaster appointment as Flynn’s replacement was an excellent choice.  Many of us remember Lt. Colonel McMaster’s brilliant strategy during the Iraq insurgency following the US invasion of 2003.  He was one of the few American military officers in senior positions who listened to Iraqi officers and local officials and formulated his military strategy building on their advice.  (Compare him, for example, to commander of US forces in Iraq, General Ricardo Sanchez).

The results McMaster achieved stood out as did those of General David Petraeus who likewise learned that Iraqis knew their interests and understood the military situation much better than Americans who had only recently arrived in Iraq. 

General James Mattis may not have evoked a lot of confidence among civilians when he was first appointed Secretary of Defense given his nickname “Mad Dog.” However, he has proved to be a competent military and policy strategist.   A veteran of the Afghan and Iraq wars, he forced troops under his command to treat civilians with respect, saying that, “Whenever you show anger or disgust toward civilians, it's a victory for al-Qa^cida and other insurgents.”

Unfortunately, the list of top foreign policymakers, with regard to competence in the Middle East and elsewhere, ends here.  Secretary of State Rex Tillerson seems to be a quick learned but has relatively no experience in the Middle East, except for the interests of his former company, Exxon Mobil, of which he was CEO.  Many analysts have questioned the ex to which he actually has any significance influence in foreign policy making in the Trump administration.

Perhaps the most troubling appointment is Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who has been assigned a considerable number of foreign policy portfolios, including the highly sensitive Israeli-Palestinian dispute.  At 36, Kushner has no experience in domestic or foreign policy making but has been given a wide range of portfolios, any one of which would challenge a seasoned policy-maker.  

Kushner’s main claim to fame is that he is the wife of Ivanka Trump.  The important point here is that Trump feels more comfortable surrounding himself with relatives, close friends or former business associates, rather than with tried and true experts, whether in domestic or foreign policy.  This inclination is not only a problem regarding his policy-maker choices, but the large number of policy-making and ambassadorial posts which still haven’t been filled.  Trump was quick to fire all ambassadors immediately after taking office but has only had a handful confirmed to date.

DECISION-MAKING TO DURING THE FIRST 1000 DAYS

Trump’s foreign policy decision-making can be divided into 2 categories - military and non-military. His decisions in both areas leave much to be desired.  Most prominent in the mind of mass publics, whether domestic or foreign, was his decisions to bomb Syria and Afghanistan.

The attack on the Shayrat Syrian air force base on April 7, 2017, was in retaliation for Bashar al-Asad’s use of chemical weapons in Khan Sheikun in the northwestern province of Idlib which is largely controlled by anti-government Islamist forces.  The US attack on the airbase, from which the jets took off to drop the chemical armed ordinance, was widely praised, both in the US and abroad.

The other bombing was the use for the first time of the  largest non-nuclear bomb in the US arsenal, the 21,000lb GBU-43/B Massive Airblast Ordinance Bomb – the so-called “mother of all bombs” – to purportedly destroy a warren of caves and tunnels in the Nangahar mountains of Afghanistan.  The bomb, which shook houses miles away from the site and killed 92 Da  ish fighters, is clearly a powerful and awe-inspiring weapon.

Despite the messages sent by these 2 attacks, the bombing of a Syrian airbase and an underground base of fighters loyal to the so-called Islamic State (Da^cish) did little to change the political dynamics in either country.  Syrian warplanes were using the airbase the day after the US bombed it, because the Tomahawk missiles do not have the capacity to crater a runway.  In fact, photographs of the airbase indicated that only some old concrete hangers had been destroyed.  At $600,000 per Tomahawk missile, one has to ask whether the cost was worth or whether another site more damaging to the al-Asad regime should have been chosen.

In Afghanistan, US and Afghan troops were forbidden to approach the bombed site to gather forensic evidence until 2 days after it occurred.  The reason seems clear – not all of the Da^cish fighters had not been killed and cleared from the area.  Indeed, fighting between Afghan and Da^cish fighters continued for days after the attack.

On April 21, a small group of Taliban fighters entered an Afghan military base for new recruits, many of whom had never handled a rifle, and killed and wounded 140 soldiers after Friday prayers.  The worst attack on the Afghan military in 16 years led to the resignation of the Defense Minister and the  Army Chief-of-Staff.  Despite the use of the MOAB, Afghanistan seems nowhere near being secure.

In a third area of military policy, Trump has followed the Obama administration’s lead and continued to support Saudi Arabia in its destructive war in Yemen.  Its struggle against Houthi rebels, who are only loosely tied to Iran, is seen as a proxy war for control of the Arabian Peninsula and the Arab/Persian Gulf.

However, the Trump administration has intensified US support for the Saudi monarchy, in effect given it carte blanche to engage in whatever military behavior it sees fit.  The outcome has only been to bring Yemen to the verge of a failed state which will play in to the hands of terrorist groups, especially al-Qa^cida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

Aside from military strikes, Trump has signaled his support for authoritarianism in the MENA region.  Unlike Pope Francis who criticized Egyptian president ^cAbd al-Fattah al-Sisi for his authoritarian rule during an April 28th meeting during his visit to Egypt, Trump’s meeting with al-Sisi earlier in the month included only parasite for the Egyptian leader.

More recently, Trump was one of the few  world leaders to praise President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan for passing a referendum which would greatly augment the president’s power, eliminate the position of prime minister, give the Turkish president much greater control over the Turkish parliament and judiciary and allow him to remain in office until 2029.  That the referendum was characterized by irregularities and only passed by a small percentage of eligible voters seem also to have been unimportant to Trump.

Trump calls Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to congratulate him on the Referendum victory

While many leaders criticized the referendum process, which included approving without review at least 165,000 votes which had not been certified, the US supported Turkey’s increasingly authoritarian political system.  That many intellectuals, journalists, judges, school teachers, and professionals are in prison on unspecified charges also seemed not to bother President Trump.

Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, Trump has demonstrated the same incoherent policy which has characterized much of his domestic policy.  On the one hand, he promised during the 2016 presidential campaign to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.  However, there has been no talk of implementing that change since he took office.

In one of the most bizarre appointments, Trump nominated his former bankruptcy attorney, David Friedman, to become ambassador to Israel, which will likely occur this June.  Friedman was influential in having Republican Party support for a two-state solution – Israel and Palestine – removed from the party platform.  He supports settlements on the West Bank and, in effect, the seizure of Palestinian land.

At the same time, Trump has made noises that increased Israeli settlement on the West Bank is “not helpful,” and will soon meet with Palestine National Authority (PNA) President Mahmud Abbas.  During the presidential campaign, Trump boasted that he would bring the Israelis and Palestinians together and bring about a solution to a problem which, to date, has been intractable.  His designated envoy to seeking a settlement between the 2 parties, Jared Kushner, does not seem to hold any fixed positions on the dispute.

In Iraq, the Trump administration created a bitter taste by including Iraq – supposedly one of our closest allies in the Middle East – among the countries to which the Muslim ban would apply.  It was only after more sane heads prevailed, certainly including NSA H.R. McMaster, that Iraq was removed from the list. 

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, which has engaged in the export of its virulent and violent Wahhabi ideology, which is hostile to Shi^ca, Christians and Jews, and Sunni Muslims who don’t follow its creed, and contributed to terrorist activity in myriad countries was left off the list.  Undoubtedly, this omission had something to do with it status as a major oil producer, purchaser of US arms, and perhaps even based on Trump family business interests.

MIDDLE EAST POLICY UNDER TRUMP

Despite considerable rhetoric and bluster, the Trump administration  has not developed any new policy towards the Middle East.  Much of what Trunmp and his advisers are poursuying constitutes a continuation of Obama policy.  No oen would expoect, in any event, a new policy to emnerge within the frist 100 days of any American president's term.

However, the erratic nature of Trump's behavior in foreign policy, not just in the MENA region but elsewhere (think about the aircraft carrier fiasco in Korea, his reversal of China as a "currency manipulation," and NATO now becoming "relevant"), has undermined US credibility globally.

As "shock and awe" demonstration in Iraq, the use of overwhelming firepower will not take the US very far in the Middle East.  Afghanistan is not closer to stability today than it was before the the dropping of the "mother of all bombs."

The key problem is that the Trumnp administration lacks the temperament to engage in the long-term, nuanced and detailed policy analysis which is required to bring about meaningful change in the Middle East.  H.R. McMaster notwithstanding, the personnel surrounding Trump view the world through a binary lens - pro-US/anti-US.  This form of thinking will only lead to greater, not less, instability in the region.

If Trump thinks that by supporting dictators, such as Erdoğan and al-Sisi, and supporting wars that lead to failed states, such as Saudi Arabia';s relentless bombing is causing in Yemen, he is in for a rude awakening.  The Middle East is a highly complex region.  Unless and until Trump recognizes that there are no simplistic solutions to the region's problems, he will find himself facing yet another disastrous policy failure to add to his domestic policy travails.