Israel and Turkey are betting on Trump's Pax Americana

For both Israel and Turkey , the present moment may appear to be a golden opportunity to forge a durable bond in the coming years. But it is more likely that this is going to be a temporary, tactical alliance rather than a strategic partnership, given the conflicting nature of national interests and the personalities of their leaders. Both Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are betting on US president-elect Donald Trump , with a mix of confidence and anxiety. Indeed, Mr Trump, while mercurial, is decisive when it comes to American interests, which he prioritises above all else. Mr Trump disdains complacency, whether in personal relationships with world leaders or in assumptions about his broader policies and future actions. His influence is already shaping international and regional power dynamics even before entering the White House, redefining the positions of Turkey and Israel in the new map of the Middle East . The outlines of a new Pax Americana – or American-led peace – is reassuring to some but is triggering panic in others, who fear it might signal unchecked American hegemony at the expense of a multipolar world. Yet, the traditional concept of Pax Americana is not the objective for Mr Trump, who does not want the US to bear the costs of maintaining such peace. He does not believe in paying for the defence of others, as evident in his stance towards Nato member states . Mr Trump does not want America to fund state-building in any other country. Rather, he envisions a Pax Americana that brings benefits, profits and wealth to the US, one centred on investment in America, requiring favourable environments and the removal of obstacles to this vision. The Middle East is undergoing seismic transformations that have, so far, resulted in pushing Russia out of its Syrian bases and potentially ejecting it from the Mediterranean. Regardless of Russian President Vladimir Putin 's claim that withdrawing from Syria was a "mission accomplished" victory against terrorism, his statements about the future of Russian bases are striking. He said Russia did not know to what extent it needs the bases in Syria and what they might offer, adding that Moscow is reassessing the future of its presence in Syria based on the actions of the new Syrian authorities . Despite Mr Putin's claims, however, losing the Hmeimim and Tartus bases on the Mediterranean is likely to erode Russia's capabilities and curtail its ambitions in the Middle East and Africa. The loss in Syria will be costly for Russia in Libya and its African deployments. Meanwhile, what Mr Erdogan could offer Mr Trump and other Nato leaders, as well as to Israel, is a new Syria, in which Turkey could help oversee upcoming elections and play a role in drafting a new constitution , applying Turkey's governance model. Mr Erdogan may promise, though not guarantee, that Syria will not turn into a hub for Islamic extremism. Mr Trump has expressed admiration for Mr Erdogan’s ambitions and personality, calling their relationship "great" and Mr Erdogan a "very strong and smart man” worthy of the greatness of the Ottoman Empire, which previously dominated Syria for hundreds of years. Mr Trump described Mr Erdogan's actions in Syria as an "unfriendly takeover" through opposition factions but stated, "I think Turkey is very smart," adding, "Turkey wanted control of Syria 'for thousands of years' and now they have it” in reference to the Ottoman history of Syria. Turkey’s foreign minister objected to Mr Trump’s description of Ankara’s actions as a "takeover," but behind the scenes, Mr Trump’s team assured Mr Erdogan’s government that Mr Trump would not stand in Turkey’s way as long as it respects America’s red lines vis-a-vis the Kurds . Furthermore, the US could drop opposition to Turkey's acquisition of F-35 aircraft, and to its imposition of its governance model in Syria and expansion of influence in North Africa from Libya to Egypt. Indeed, US interests currently align with Turkey’s readiness to act on behalf of Washington and Nato capitals. And Turkey would double its regional influence should it succeed in imposing its model in Syria first, followed by Egypt and other Arab nations. Iranian leaders are also concerned if the US decides to launch strikes against Iran. The US conditions to not strike, in simple terms, are firstly: Iran’s complete cessation of any projects or ambitions related to acquiring nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. Secondly, the dismantling of Tehran’s doctrine based on extending its influence and exporting its revolution through loyal proxies and militias. As it appears now, Tehran is not prepared at this juncture to play by these rules, perhaps due to its internal disputes. However, Mr Trump does not want to wait for Iran to complete its nuclear programme. He wants to seize the opportunity presented by Iran’s current strategic weakness – otherwise, he could shift from incentives to threats and cripple Iran economically, along with its nuclear programme . It can be said that the most significant relationship for Mr Trump in the Middle East is the US-Israeli alliance, which the president-elect wants to be the strongest. Israel today is at its strongest regionally and it wants Turkey's co-operation with its policies towards Iran, particularly in relation of striking Iran's nuclear capabilities. The regional balance of power has shifted dramatically following the decline of Iran’s influence and the rise of Turkey and Israel to prominence. Arab countries are cautious, aware that their weight could become more significant if they use their leverage effectively. Some Gulf countries are trying to avoid ideological alignment, taking a position on Iran, or entangling themselves in Turkish-Israeli relations. The strongest leverage Gulf countries have is their openness to the "deal of the century," which Mr Trump wants to implement, particularly between Saudi Arabia and Israel, while maintaining their positions on a Palestinian state and the two-state solution . Additionally, there are tools for influencing the reconstruction of Lebanon and Syria – not only practically on the ground but also by shaping the reconstruction of both countries to ensure they remain in the Arab fold, despite Turkish and Israeli projects aiming to impose changes in them aligned with their interests. The US would be mistaken if it gave Turkey or Israel unchecked authority to meddle in Arab countries. This is because the new Pax Americana carries significant opportunities that could serve American interests through the Arab gateway. But this cannot be done by turning the Middle East into a Turkish-Israeli feast, to the tunes of an American carte blanche.