A Trump Doctrine for the Middle East
The region has now been Trump-branded as “a troubled place”—and one America is not particularly
interested in helping.
Martin Indyk
The Atlantic | 14 Apr 2018
www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/trump-syria-middle-east/558053/
The evening of Friday, April 13th, 2018, was John
Bolton’s debut crisis as President Trump’s national-
security adviser. Barely three days on the job and
there he was, standing off-camera in the White
House Diplomatic Reception Room, while his new
boss delivered an address to the nation to explain
why U.S., British, and French aircraft and missiles
were attacking targets associated with Syria’s
chemical-weapons program.
Trump read from a teleprompter, standing in
front of a portrait of George Washington, flanked at
each shoulder by a small bronze statue of an
American eagle with its wings raised and an
arrangement of yellow and white roses. The
symbolism was of an assertive White House in
spring bloom. As his boss delivered what sounded
like a carefully negotiated script, Bolton studied a
copy of Trump’s remarks with gel pen poised as if to
check whether he remained true to his text.
To be sure, there were a few classic Trumpisms
in the president’s delivery: Assad as a “monster,” the
American economy as the “greatest and most
powerful … in the history of the world,” and
Trump’s wistful ever-present hope that “someday
we will get along with Russia.”
But the real message of the address was far
more restrained than Trump or his national-security
adviser reportedly desired. A chemical weapons
R&D center and two storage facilities were
destroyed to degrade—not eliminate—Assad’s
capabilities and send a signal that the United States
and its Western allies would not tolerate the use of
these weapons of mass destruction. No other
regime targets were struck, no Syrian aircraft
destroyed, no Russian or Iranian bases threatened,
and no Russian air-defense zone penetrated. It was,
as Defense Secretary James Mattis described it
afterward, “a one-time shot.” No doubt at another
time, under another president, Trump and Bolton
would have accurately described it as a “pin-prick
attack.”
As commander-in-chief, with Bolton at his side
to bolster his belligerent instincts, Trump could have
easily insisted on a more substantial attack. His
decision not to do so underscored the underlying
import of the missiles he had dispatched and the
message that he meant to accompany them. That
message was the real lead that Trump buried in his
Friday the 13th Address. And it amounts to a Trump
Doctrine for the Middle East.
“We cannot purge the world of evil or act
everywhere there is tyranny,” Trump averred, in
stark contrast to John F. Kennedy’s “pay any price,
bear any burden … to assure the survival and the
success of liberty.” Instead, Trump was intent on
downplaying expectations and limiting U.S.
engagement: “No amount of American blood or
treasure can produce lasting peace and security in
the Middle East. It’s a troubled place,” he declared.
Trump promised to “try to make it better,” but he
repeated: “It is a troubled place.”
Like “Crooked Hillary,” “Liddle Marco,” “Lyin’
Ted,” and “Leakin’ Comey,” the Middle East has now
been Trump-branded as “a troubled place.” Clearly
not somewhere for a great-again-America to invest
its energy. By his use of American force, Trump
intended to establish a strong deterrent against
Assad’s use of chemical weapons, because he
declared it to be “a vital national security interest of
the United States.” But, this vital interest would
remain narrowly defined. By contrast, “the fate of
the region,” he explained, “lies in the hands of its
own people.”
In other words, there would be no effort to
overthrow Assad, or any other Middle Eastern
tyrant. To protect the American people, Trump
would complete the destruction of ISIS in Syria,
“with but a small force.” It would, however, be up to
America’s regional friends to “ensure that Iran does
not profit from the eradication of ISIS.” Indeed,
Trump elaborated, “we have asked our partners to
take greater responsibility for securing their home
region.” So much for the United States taking the
lead in rolling back Iran’s hegemonic gains in the
Middle East, as Trump’s scathing criticism of the Iran
nuclear deal had implied. Trump has in effect now
declared that in the Middle East he will, just like his
archrival Obama, lead from behind.
Critics of Trump who argue that the strike on
Syrian chemical weapons facilities needs to be part of
a broader strategy seem to be deaf to this message, meantime? Iran, of course, which by supplying
perhaps imagining they can goad him into adopting a rockets to Houthi rebels is building its position of
more ambitious effort to remake Syria or the influence on Saudi Arabia’s southern border for
broader region in America’s image. But Trump barely any cost to itself.
already has a Middle East strategy. It’s just not the We should not imagine that John Bolton is going
one they, and possibly Bolton, would prefer. He will to change any of this. Perhaps he wanted a more
embrace America’s Middle East partners, autocrats robust attack. Perhaps he wanted to provoke a
and democrats alike, and sell them all the arms they confrontation with Russia. But his checking of
can afford. But it’s their job to assume the burdens Trump’s text against delivery in the Diplomatic
of dealing with this troubled place, not his. Reception Room is a picture that tells a thousand
If Assad dares to use chemical weapons again, words. He was making sure the Trump Doctrine for
Trump made clear he’ll bomb again. But if Assad disengagement from the Middle East was accurately
wants to continue slaughtering his people with delivered.
conventional weapons, it’s up to others to deal with
him. Listen up: “The fate of the region lies in the
hands of its own people,” not in Trump’s hands.
His intent to leave Syria to its own devices was
something Trump clearly signaled when he declared
on March 29 that American troops would be
departing there “very soon.” “Let other people take
care of it,” he told a rally of his supporters in Ohio,
foreshadowing his more detailed remarks on Friday
night.
But he had already made clear his intentions in
Syria, or lack of them, over the past year when he
repeatedly avoided helping Israel, America’s closest
Middle Eastern ally, contain Iran’s encroachments
there. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has tried
repeatedly to enlist Trump’s aid in establishing red
lines in Syria against Iran’s establishment there of an
air base, factories for precision-guided rockets for
delivery to Hezbollah, and encroachment of the
Golan Heights by Iranian-backed militias. Instead,
Netanyahu has had to travel seven times to Moscow
to beseech Putin for the help he could not secure
from Trump. But absent Trump’s engagement, Putin
has no interest in challenging his Iranian partner in
Assad’s reconquest of rebel-controlled territories.
Bibi’s appeals therefore fell on Putin’s deaf ears.
This has left Israel to enforce its own red lines
by attacking Iranian facilities and convoys. Now
Tehran’s promises of retaliation are ratcheting up
tensions and an all-out confrontation is looming, one
that could engulf Lebanon too. Should that happen,
Trump can be counted on to cheer Israel from the
sidelines as the troubled place becomes predictably
even more troubled.
Similarly, in Yemen, Trump is happy to help his
friend Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
flail around in the quagmire, providing all the
weapons and intelligence he can use. But there has
been and will be no U.S. diplomatic engagement to
promote a political settlement that might help Saudi
Arabia forge a much-needed exit strategy and end
the humanitarian crisis. And who benefits in the