Trump's Foreign Policy

I used to think Trump was a clown, a buffoon, a corrupt businessman who didn't know anything about American politics, whether domestic or international.

Then I watched the following policy speech:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q_s6cXSv_8


And I discovered that the Media portrayal of Trump in regards to Foreign Policy - he would be the first to use a nuke, that world war 3 would start under him - was false.

Trump, for all his faults, has a better Foreign Policy than Hillary Clinton's.


Hillary Clinton has followed the neo-con handbook. Her vote in favour of the Iraq War was not followed by apology or sincere change of policy - rather, she only continued to please her donors in voting for the ousting of Egypt's Mubarak - who had signed a declaration of peace with Israel - and Clinton replaced him with Muslim Brotherhood Morsi.

Clinton did not stop there. She continued her failed policy by ousting Gidaffi in Libya and replacing him with - well, militias squabbling with each other. They are still squabbling.

And she is not stopping. She wants to remove President Assad from Syria - which would be her worst foreign policy decision to date.

Yes, worse than voting for the Iraq War. I said it.
(Refer to earlier post for more details.)

Trump says he wishes to "get out of the nation-building business" and "focus on stability." (By the way, in his foreign policy speech, he did not mention nukes once. Not once! Ergh, American Media...)

Trump has tapped into what the American people want: an end to endless wars. But he recognises that in order to create lasting peace in an area as volatile as the Middle-East, strong men are a better alternative to terrorists. Regarding Assad, Trump said, "Maybe Assad is a bad guy, but there might be worse guys after him... We don't even know who we're funding."

Meaning that step 1 in Trump's Foreign Policy is the handing over of terrorism in Syria to Russia and President Assad - who is the head of the internationally recognised government anyway. Such a move benefits the Middle-East, benefits the Syrian people, benefits relations between America and Russia and benefits Israel. I will unpack each of these below:

1) Benefits the Middle-East. The destabilization of Syria with the removal of Assad would destroy much heritage and culture of the Middle-East. Together with Egypt and Iraq, Syria is one of the countries which is most recognised for its culture and heritage in the Middle-East. An escalation in violence and killing caused by the removal of Assad would destroy a sizeable amount of heritage in Syria and the Middle-East.

2) Benefits the Syrian people. Most Syrians live in Assad's territory - they're not fleeing Assad - they're fleeing Al-Qaeda and ISIS. The Syrians that are disgruntled and not content with Assad are mainly from the villages and countryside of Syria - these are a minority fighting the majority (except they have American/Western backing.) Most people would benefit more from an Assad victory than from his removal: Alawites, Druze, Christians and upper-class Sunnis would all stand to benefit.

3) Benefits relations between America and Russia. American-Russian relations are at their worst post-Cold War. American pressure easing in Syria would undoubtedly give Putin the space he needs to show the world that he wishes to accomplish good in Syria and fight terrorism. Putin would also give America more concessions in other areas if his top Middle-East ally were left alone.

4) Benefits Israel. There are those in Israel that believe getting rid of Assad would benefit Israel - Hillary Clinton is one such as this. I disagree for a reason I have stated earlier: at the moment, Israel's main enemies are Shi'ite Muslims, not Sunni Muslims. The majority of Muslims in the Middle-East - and in the world - are Sunni. If the Assad Government is removed - a Shi'ite power that has maintained a peaceful border with Israel - then Sunnis would undoubtedly turn their attention to Israel themselves and make this peaceful border not so peaceful. This "sleeping giant" of Sunnis turning to fight Israel has been asleep since the beginning of the Iraq War - Israel would be wise to keep it asleep.


Trump may also install a dictator in Afghanistan. At the moment, the Taliban controls a sizeable amount of territory in Afghanistan - they are stronger than they have been in a number of years - and America cannot defeat them with their current strategy. With "getting out of the nation-building business" and "focusing on stability," the logical conclusion for Trump regarding Afghanistan would be to push for a Sunni dictator to take control. This would destroy the Taliban for sure; it would also stabilize a country which has seen nothing but war for the past 15 years. It would provide a balwark for Iranian influence, much as Saddam Hussein did in Iraq prior to the Iraq War.

Afghanistan may be the country Trump gets out of more successfully than Obama did from Iraq.


It may be possible as well that Trump would increase relations with Iraq and decrease relations with Saudi Arabia. He has said jokingly, "We gotta take their [Iraqi] oil" - but what he is referring to is keeping Iraq's oil out of the hands of American companies - companies selling the oil elsewhere - and increasing oil trade between Iraq and America.

Iraq would likely stabilize under a new level of relations with America and the economic boost associated with it. Whether Iraq breaks in 2 or not would be irrelevant - America has established trade with Gulf countries whether part of Saudi Arabia or not; there is no reason to suggest they would not do the same with both mainland and Kurdish Iraq.

America not boosting the oil industry in both Iran and Saudi Arabia would dampen terrorist efforts enormously, as both have been funding terrorism extensively.

This would likely have an impact on the Saudi-American war on Houthis in Yemen. While pro-Iranian, the Houthis may be able to be pushed into closer relations with Iraq over Iran, through which Trump may give them the green light to control all of Yemen and expel Al-Qaeda from Yemen for good.

With Libya, Trump would likely wait for the country to deteriorate extensively before intervening again there. This is a sad reality for Libyans: Americans are war-weary.

Trump is a better solution than Clinton. I can provide more links below if requested.

ISIS finished in Sirte but not in Libya

 NOTE: for those who do not know, Libya was a functioning state - one of the best in Africa - under Muammar Al-Gidaffi. At the height of the Arab Spring, Barrack Obama - with much insistence from neo-con hawk Hillary Clinton - authorised a "no-fly-zone" in Libya. The result of this was that Gidaffi was deposed by Libyan militias and the country has since slid into utter chaos, threatening stability in Egypt, Tunisia, Niger and Chad.

Currently there is a civil war in Libya, which began at approximately the same time as the Iraqi-Syrian war in 2014. Two rival governments are fighting for contol - the government based in Tripoli is a loose band of militias, while the government in Tobruk are the remnants of Gidaffi's government. Exploiting this war was ISIS, which controlled the city of Derna for a few months, before relocating to Gidaffi's hometown in Sirte.

The chaos and instability in Libya is the result of the "no-fly-zone" authorised by Clinton and Obama. Keep that in mind the next time you hear Hillary Clinton use that term regarding Syria.



Barrack Obama has authorised the use of airstrikes against ISIS' stronghold in Sirte, with the aid of militias from rival city Misrata. ISIS has controlled the city for approximately 18 months, but is likely to be driven out of the city.

While no longer in control of any physical territory, ISIS is very unlikely to be driven from the country - only to change strategy.

After ISIS - then Al-Qaeda in Iraq - was driven out of Fallujah and other Iraqi cities in 2006 - as a result of the Anbar Awakening - the organisation merely shifted its strategy from establishing an Islamic State to destabilizing the region through numerous suicide bombings. It was true: Sunni Iraqis despised ISIS for the next few years, but the result of the destabilizing tactic by ISIS was that they returned even more powerfully in 2014, 8 years later.

The other thing to note about ISIS' strategy in Iraq was that they took advantage of the chaos in nearby Syria. Under the guise of Jabhat Al-Nusra - Al-Qaeda in Syria - ISIS established control of much territory in eastern and northern Syria. This battle experience was essential in the lightning-fast offensive against the Iraqi Government in 2014.

ISIS is in Libya to stay, perhaps not as a ruler of territory but as a destabilizer. ISIS is close to losing its Caliphate in Iraq - recent developments suggest Iraqi Sunnis may be more willing to work with Iraqi Shi'ites than with ISIS, uniting central and southern Iraq to each other.

Such a move would be a massive and potentially long-term blow for the group in Iraq, but Libya is still a centre of chaos which ISIS can take advantage of. The small militias fighting one another is likely to breed much frustration for Libyans - especially their youth - and the result of this may be, in the next few years, a rapid increase of support for ISIS.

One country not talked about is post-Arab Spring Tunisia. Interestingly, the majority of ISIS fighters comes not from countries sharing their ideology - such as Saudi Arabia - but Tunisia. These fighters are coming home. They are angry with their government, angry with the erosion of their Arabic culture and the majority of their youth are unemployed.

Tunisia seems ready for civil war. Given the amount of fighters from Tunisia, ISIS would be the likely benefactor of such a war, to the detriment of Arab democracy and Libya.

Tunisia's south is more conservative than its north. Because of this, ISIS would be able to maintain a stronghold in the south and from there push into Libya.

Such seems the future of Libya: destined for more chaos and more ISIS. There is nothing the West can do, only wait to pick up the remnants of the country and piece them back together, as they are doing in Iraq.

Iraq: the Impending Revolution

(NOTE: Regarding ISIS and the Iraq War, there are those who blame Barrack Obama for withdrawing the way he did in 2011 - Obama has other things he should be blamed for re Foreign Policy, but withdrawing from Iraq is not one of them.

The blame for ISIS and the Iraq War rests squarely on the Bush Administration and especially on Dick Cheney who, if one sifts through old videos from the 1990's, would find out that he did know better - but did it anyway because, as they say, "money talks."

Since 2004 - yes, since 2004 - Iraq has been ISIS' most effective base. Under its founder, Zarqawi, ISIS used to be called "Al-Qaeda in Iraq," but Zarqawi's methods were quite different to those of Bin Laden: Zarqawi was interested in starting a Sunni-Shi'ite war across the Middle-East - Bin Laden was focused on sustaining a long-term Sunni war on the West. Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the current leader of ISIS, heralds directly from Zarqawi's vision. Al-Qaeda in Iraq and ISIS are the SAME organisation.)



No matter what happens in Syria, Yemen or Libya, Iraq is destined for more chaos.

Since 2003, Iraq has been the Middle-East's centre for chaos. An argument could almost be made that, without the Iraq War, the Arab Spring would never have happened. Without the Iraq War, the Syrian Civil War would not have been as horrid or as deadly.

Without the Iraq War, there would not be any ISIS in Iraq.

Now the Iraqi Army is moving in to take control of Mosul, one of Iraq's largest cities, which has been under ISIS control for over 2 years. On the northern side of Mosul is the Kurdish Peshmerga - both are moving in to wrest this city back from ISIS control.

But few pundits give thought to what is likely to happen after ISIS is removed from Mosul and from Iraq. But the signs are telling, and the answer is clear: ISIS will not leave Iraq, more blood will be shed, and a revolution will take place.

 I will answer each of these points below:

1) ISIS will not leave Iraq. This does not mean that ISIS will immediately return to the Sunni areas of Iraq as soon as America withdraws - they will not have the popularity from the Sunnis to do so as of yet - but they will use Iraq as a hideout from which to plan terrorist attacks across the world.

ISIS is interested in sparking a Sunni-Shi'ite conflict across the entire Middle-East - they have succeeded to do this in Iraq and in Syria, but their new target has been Saudi Arabia.

If Bashar Al-Assad remains in power in Syria, Saudi Arabia will be faced with the ISIS threat immediately. The image of Saudi Arabia losing the Sunni-Shi'ite war to Iran would cause Saudis to look elsewhere for inspiration. ISIS provides the most tempting inspiration of all.

If Assad does remain power in Syria and after losing its territories in Iraq and going underground, ISIS would be likely to direct the majority of its resources to destabilizing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and it would do this from its base in Iraq, secured in the utter chaos that is post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.

ISIS is, unfortunately, likely to succeed in destabilizing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Were a war to break out in the Kingdom, ISIS would be able to hop across from Iraq's southern border, control territories in the north and east of Saudi Arabia then, after succeeding in pushing Shi'ite Saudis into the ocean and establishing dominance in the region, it may be able to invade Iraq from the south.

Yes: after the Syrian Civil War spilling into Iraq, a Saudi Civil War could also spill into Iraq.


2) More blood will be shed. But more immediate is what will happen after ISIS is temporarily defeated in Mosul. What is likely to happen is that the Sunni Arab tribes of Iraq would not have the power or military might to govern or defend themselves: Shi'ite Arabs would likely take control of their regions after ISIS does.

This would mean life would be miserable for many Sunni Arab Iraqis, but they would be sick of war and retaliation by this stage, and would likely not fight as hard against the Shi'ites as they did - with ISIS - over the past 2 years. They would likely try and blot out the suffering of their own people.

Where a more even-grounded war would be fought would be a war between the Peshmerga - the Iraqi Kurdish forces - and the Iraqi Army and its associates in the Hasd Ash-Sha'abi militias. But without American support, the Shi'ites of Iraq cannot hope to defeat the Kurds. The Kurds would, at a price, win for themselves complete autonomy in northern Iraq.

This would cause many Iraqis not to blame the Sunnis, but the Iraqi government for its problems. In this, Shi'ites and Sunnis would be united: Kurdish separation from Iraq was unacceptable, and significant change must occur to prevent further separation.


3) A revolution will take place. Iraqis are sick and tired of living in violence. They are sick and tired of the corruption in their country, and they are aching for stability. Iraqis from Sunni and Shi'ite Arab regions do not wish to split from each other - they would rather continue killing each other - but they are aware that the international community might split them up if their country does not stabilize.

This fear from both Sunnis and Shi'ites in Iraq; a loss of territory due to Peshmerga defeating the Iraqi Army and associates; a growing mistrust in the Iranian-backed government; all these factors would lead Iraq in one direction: revolution.

Muqtada Al-Sadr seems the most likely candidate to take advantage of this revolution. Though initially Iranian-backed, he has softened his sectarian rhetoric and focused much more on Iraqi nationalism. That is his defining trait over the Iraqi government: he is more interested in bringing Sunnis and Shi'ites together as Iraqis.

Current Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi is unable to deliver on the democratic reforms he has promised. He lacks the will and power, whereas Sadr does not. Sadr has influence over much of Shi'ite Iraq - he is perhaps the most influential Shi'ite Iraqi at this moment - and the Sunnis in central Iraq would do anything for representation - maybe even support Sadr.

Sadr would then likely rein in the Shi'ite militias in the Sunni territories, tone down the sectarianism and work hard at uniting Sunni and Shi'ite Iraq to each other.

If Sadr fails to end the sectarianism, nothing will change in Iraq. ISIS would return, likely from the south, and likely sacking Baghdad the next time, and Iraq would be broken into three states.

Either way, the revolution is on its way. Let it not take you by surprise when it happens.

If Assad loses the Syrian civil war

This is to give an analysis of the frightening possibility of Assad losing the civil war. In this scenario, Hillary Clinton would be the reason for the overthrow of Bashar Al-Assad.


1) America would be despised by Syrian Arabs. Many Syrians see the civil war not as a war between Syrians, but a war between Syrians (on Assad's side) and the international community that wishes to destroy them. It would be mainly the Arabs - Alawite, Christian, Druze and even Sunnis - that would hate America; the Kurds would not.

This contrasts to Iraq. Shi'ite Iraqis are - quite secretly - very thankful to America for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. For Shi'ite Iraqis, they see the current situation in Iraq as preferable to the days of Saddam Hussein. Sunni Arabs, by contrast, pay lip service to yet hate America very much. Iraqi Kurds both pay lip service to and love America.


2) The Muslim Brotherhood would nominally control Syria. From the beginning, Hillary Clinton has used the Arab Spring as an attempt to bring the Muslim Brotherhood into power. It is likely this is because she has been paid substantial amounts of money by pro-Muslim Brotherhood, resource-rich country Qatar - as long as she gets her money, who cares what her decisions cause in Libya, Egypt or Syria?

This is also likely because Turkey has been the main antagonist of the Syrian civil war. Erdogan is very pro-Muslim Brotherhood, and so together with support from Qatar would very likely open the door for a Muslim Brotherhood President.

With the absence of strong man Bashar Al-Assad, the Muslim Brotherhood government that would follow would be hopeless. It would be as chronically weak as the curent Iraqi or Afghani Governments.

3) Al-Qaeda and ISIS would win another victory in the war on terror. Hillary Clinton's "war on terror" policies should be changed to "war for terror," because her greatest accomplishments as Secretary of State were the establishment of terrorist hub Libya, along with the moving of the Libyan Government's weapons from Libya to Syria to substantially - and cheaply - arm the rebels in the Syrian Civil War. She also supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, who were known for their disdain and abuse of Egyptian minorities.


Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are three examples of America's failed foreign policy. It has failed because it rests on the assumption that the Middle-East region is ready for democracy. As I have said before, "the war for democracy must wait until the war on terror is won." America cannot fund both extremists and moderates at the same time without the extremists taking control.

For Hillary Clinton to add Syria to her list of failures would mean that both ISIS and Al-Qaeda would control substantial chunks of Syria, with the chronically weak Muslim Brotherhood Government not strong enough nor united enough to wrest control of them back. It would make trade with Iraq and Turkey very difficult - ISIS would be engrained in the Bedouin tribes of Syria, west of Iraq; Al-Qaeda would rest up around Idlib and Aleppo provinces, south of Turkey - which would only add to Syria's problems.

4) Hezbollah would grow in Syria. One of the better side-effects of the Syrian civil war would be the weakening of anti-Israeli pro-Iranian Hezbollah - which is, of course, the main reason why the war is being supported by America: to destroy Hezbollah.

Lebanon's stability rests on the stability of Syria. If Bashar Al-Assad is overthrown, Hezbollah's main ally would be gone and Hezbollah would be vulnerable, so vulnerable they may try and take control of Lebanon to ensure they remain in the region.

If something like this happened, Sunnis, Christians and other groups would likely rally behind the Lebanese government in a show of strength to stop Hezbollah from taking control of their country. (This would likely be encouraged by the same countries which funded the overthrow of Bashar Al-Assad.)

Though it is possible that Hezbollah would be severely weakened in Lebanon, there is every chance that main Hezbollah headquarters would be relocated to the Syrian Alawite region. Many Syrian minority groups would take refuge there if unable to leave, and there many minorities would join forces, under Hezbollah, to fight tooth and nail any radical Sunni group that dares approach them.

This would mean that not only would there be radical Sunni terrorists in Syria in the forms of Al-Qaeda and ISIS, but also there would be radical Shi'ite terrorists that would make the current Iraqi government blush. A radicalised Syrian Hezbollah would likely match at least Al-Qaeda in brutality; they would have to be radical, otherwise they wouldn't survive in "Free Syria."

What is surprising is that many Syrian Sunnis may join Hezbollah as well. The Syrian Civil War has often been painted as a sectarian war between Sunnis and Shi'ites, but the reality on the ground suggests an inter-Sunni civil war between Hanafis and Hanbalis, or, to put it in simple terms, between moderates and extremists. Many Syrian Sunnis are appalled with the brutality of groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and those who felt strongest about Bashar Al-Assad would likely join with his closest ally in his memory: they would fight for Hezbollah.

So in fact, as ISIS threatened the Iraqi Government in 2014, in the future we may see a large Hezbollah force threatening the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood Government with more support and strength than either Al-Qaeda or ISIS. Sure, Hezbollah would no longer threaten Israel, but it could drag America back into the region to prop up its government in Syria.

5) Anti-Israeli groups would be largely Sunni. If Hezbollah was no longer able to fight Israel, radical Sunni groups like Al-Qaeda in Syria (Jabhat Al-Nusra, Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham - whatever you want to call it) would make the quiet Syrian border with Israel no longer quiet. Such Sunni extremism against Israel would have support from the new Syrian Government, and likely also have support from the wider Sunni Arab world.

The danger perhaps unbenownst to Israel is that in destroying Shi'ite enemies and creating Sunni ones, it stands against a far larger and more deadly enemy. Sunni Muslims make up a larger portion of the Middle-East (and the world) than Shi'ite Muslims - if the Sunnis destroy the Shi'ite powers and then turn their attention to Israel, it will be larger armies and bigger forces heading for Israel than what is currently being seen.

Israel should indeed think hard about whether the destruction of Hezbollah is worth the revival of what has been - since the days of Saddam Hussein - a sleeping giant.

6) Palestinians may become even more radicalised. With Syrians embracing Al-Qaeda and fighting Israel, Palestinians, kin in the Sham region, would likely do the same. Then Israel would have more support in forcing Palestinians out from their regions from the international community than they currently do.

Such Palestinian-Israeli problems worsened would cause headaches for King Abdullah of Jordan. Though not likely at all to be kicked out of Jordan, Abdullah may face a period of instability in the readjustment of a Free Syria unleashed on the Middle-East and the resulting consequences thrown at Palestine as a result.

7) Many massacres would take place. This is one of the saddest results of the overthrow of Bashar Al-Assad: Alawites, Druze and Christians would immediately experience genocide as retaliation from extremists in Syria.

Hezbollah may protect these minorities in Syria, especially around the Latakia/Tartus regions, but this would strain their resources and cause problems for them in their base in Lebanon.

8) America would go bankrupt. In the corporate neo-con greed of current America not knowing when to stop, they would likely be faced with war with Putin for overthrowing Bashar Al-Assad - in all likelihood this may happen earlier, as soon as Hillary Clinton installs a "no-fly-zone" in Syria.

Such a war would probably bankrupt America. Already 20 trillion - yes, trillion - dollars in debt, it is unlikely America would have the financial strength to fight such a war to completion.

So terrorist groups, like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, who have spent all their time trying to destroy America and everything they stand for, would have got their wish: America would be the great power that was, over the mid-20th century to early 21st century, destroyed because they tried to fight the war on terror on two fronts: by both creating it and destroying it.


There is much more to say - how such a defeat would destabilize Turkey and the Gulf - but for the sake of your time, I will leave it here. God protect us all from what could be the worst decision ever made by America...