Why Trump may apply the Obama method in Syria

We know little of Donald Trump's plans for Syria but his approch might not be radical, writes Michael Young

Anti-war demonstrators protest US foreign policy in front of the White House in Washington. Jewel Samad / AFP Photo

Much has been made of the fact that Donald Trump will pursue policies that are in striking contrast to those of his predecessor, Barack Obama. That may be true in most domains, but probably not when it comes to the Syrian conflict.

In truth, the latitude of either Mr Trump or Hillary Clinton to change Washington’s approach to Syria was never very great. Mr Obama had set strict limits on American actions in the conflict. These allowed Russia and Iran, Bashar Al Assad’s allies, to impose new realities on the ground that effectively neutralised whatever America could do.

However, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal last week, Mr Trump was keen to underline his differences with Mr Obama. He stated that he might cut US aid to the Syrian rebels, claiming “we have no idea who these people are.”

Mr Trump went on to offer this rationale to change America’s behaviour: “My attitude was you’re fighting Syria, Syria is fighting ISIL, and you have to get rid of ISIL. Russia is now totally aligned with Syria, and now you have Iran, which is becoming powerful, because of us, is aligned with Syria.” In this way, Mr Trump continued, if the United States fought the Assad regime, it would effectively end up “fighting Russia”.

If there was little nuance in the president-elect’s logic, it was pretty close to the one adopted by the Obama administration: avoid direct military intervention on the side of the opposition to avoid any confrontation with Moscow, focus on combating ISIL and not the Assad regime and cut, or at least greatly limit, US military assistance to the rebels.

Indeed, military aid to the rebels that used to pass through the Jordanian border has now been interrupted because the border has been closed by Amman. No one really doubts that the United States played a part in that closure.

As for cooperating with Russia against groups such as ISIL or Jabhat Fatah Al Sham (formerly Jabhat Al Nusra), Mr Trump has hardly been an innovator on that front either. Last week, Mr Obama ordered the Pentagon to target the leadership of Jabhat Fatah Al Sham, perhaps the most effective military force opposing Mr Al Assad. This has been a US aim for months, and by going ahead with the decision Mr Obama could influence the outcome of the Syrian conflict.

The only thing that may really change is that Mr Obama’s hypocrisy – his efforts to suggest that he was supporting the Syrian rebels even as he took actions that prevented them from gaining any decisive advantage over the Assad regime – will be abandoned for a more open form of alignment.

It’s true that hypocrisy can serve a purpose. Mr Obama has spent five years implementing a policy that has made people believe he seeks Mr Al Assad’s removal. But without drifting into conspiracy theories, the reality was always very different. Under the guise of not wanting to involve the United States in a new regional war, the president refused to force Mr Al Assad out of office for fear that the aftermath would be chaotic.

Perhaps Mr Trump will pick up on this when he takes over. As his advisers warn him that siding openly with a Russian regime engaged in the widespread bombing of civilian populations is not the best image to project, the new president may come around to applying the Obama method. He will let the slaughter continue, but claim to be on the side of justice.

That’s why, while many Syrians are anxious about a Trump administration and his unwillingness to recognise differences between anti-Assad groups, little may change. Washington will continue to give a wide berth to Russia and Iran to do what it wants in Syria, and allow the fighting to define the endgame.

To add insult to injury, Mr Trump may well go through with his declared intention of suspending the entry of Syrian refugees into the United States. If his policies in Syria increase the flow of refugees towards Europe, this would represent a bitter irony that American allies there will feel most harshly.

Mr Trump comes across as odious because he has staked out strong positions on a conflict of which he appears to be almost entirely ignorant. But to limit the blame to him would be unfair. Mr Obama, eminently well-informed on Syria, has painted himself, probably intentionally, into a corner. He has been outmanoeuvred by Russia, allowing a situation to form that has justified US inaction in Syria, under the pretext that whatever Washington does today could make matters worse.

That millions of Syrians will continue to suffer is a tragedy. Lest we forget, American egocentrism makes the world go around.

Michael Young is a writer and editor in Beirut

On Twitter: @BeirutCalling