The Effect of Probable Alignment of America in Trump Era (2016- 2020) in Fighting against Daish on the Foreign Policy of Arabia

Yousef Ghobadi Gholoujeh¹

Abstract: Since World War II up to now, the relation between Russia and America has been among the most important international problems and it has affected the international policy and even the relations of other governments more than any other relation. The major part of this significance goes back to its systemic outcomes for the global system and political and security problems. Because, the effects of the relations of these two countries on the international system and its different problems in different domains can help to the formation of crises or their ending. Also, over time, one of the most complicated political and security challenges in the region is Syria crisis. On the other hand, political changes of Syria have provided an arena for the composition of regional and trans-regional powers. Each one of these powers has applied different procedures regarding Syria that America and Russia’ functions are of significant importance as two global superpowers. The aim of this paper is evaluating the effect of probable alignment of America and Russia in Trump era (2016-2020) in fighting against Daish on the foreign policy of Arabia. From many analysts’ point of view, foreign policy of America has been so ambiguous versus civil war in Syria. We concluded that we could predict the future relation of America and Russia in Trump era based on Trump’s viewpoint. Trump declared that this country’s policy in Syria should have been concentrated on fighting against Daish terrorist group and not Assad’s regime.

Keywords: Alignment; Daish; foreign policy; Trump era

Introduction

Nowadays, recognition and evaluation of international landmarks and the analysis of regional changes are based on the analysis of the action of great powers of international structure. In the modern structure of international system, some signs of competition and conflict and encounter and cooperation are observed among great powers. During the cold war, also, any competition among bipolar great structure powers was formed based on the rules and predictable interaction method. In that situation, great powers, alongside competition in the bipolar international structure participated in solving regional crises. After the end of cold war and United States’ conversion to the superior power in the international structure, the relations of this country with Russia which was the heir of council countries, became a subordinate of the revision of definitions of the great power. During the 70 years era of the cold war, in spite of the temporary jurisdiction of china in two decades of 50 and 60 ad, Japan and Germany, in the 70 decades of ad, regarding economic and convergence of Europe, likewise considered the political thinkers of international system as two super powers and several big powers (Boozan, 2010). But, following the end of cold war, this division was formed in another manner. The power in the last decade of twentieth century was distributed immensely; so that polarity idea was wasted in every possible way and America achieved a unique position. This issue was observable in the relations of this country with other performers and international issues. After the end of cold war, the only thing which influenced the relations of America and Russia was open and scattered distribution of power in different levels of international structure. One of the problems of this situation was that what behaviors and patterns should America have applied in order for regulating these relations? In fact, how and where to behave with a great power like Russia? It is clear that America’s behavior for arranging these relations is an effort in order for suppressing Stephen Walt’s statement who interpreted the continuity of the existent situation of the world after cold war as a multi polar world. Of course, this issue was in contrast with behavioral patterns of America. America’s behavior in the years after cold war with Russia can be interpreted as the signs of America’s effort in order for preventing Russia’s conversion from a great power to a serious competitor (Craig Nation, 2012). Foreign policy consists of a policy and method that governments adopt in dealing with foreign affairs in order for preserving the sovereignty and defending the existence of their interests. Foreign policy of all countries is in communication with the external and internal environment and also the aims and strategies and devices and tactics and foreign policy structure and decisions and measurements and the outcomes of foreign policy all play role in this process. National governments, by enjoying their national and regional and trans-regional capacities put forward different strategies in the event of achieving their national goals and interests and they don’t withhold any effort in this regard. The current research, according to the internal context of Russia and the interference of regional and trans-regional performers and different and standard ideological attitudes, has evaluated realism procedure in the strategy of foreign policy of Arabia regarding Daish crisis (Sajjad Poor, 2001, p. 11). Daish terrorist group is one of the extremist processes which has been formed in the recent years following the protection and planning of America and Zionists and it has converted to a regional danger following the protection of some western countries. This illegitimate process, up to now, has had destructive and catastrophic outcomes in Islamic countries including Syria and Iraq. People killing and social massacre in the cities and villages and bombing and destruction of mosques and holy sites of the Muslims and exploitation and illegal sale of the oil reserves to the Israeli and American companies and occupation of cities and creating insecurity in them and so on are only a part of different political and social and cultural and economic outcomes of the attacks of this excommunicated group during the last recent years. Daish group, since the beginning of formation up to now, has been the instrumentation of colonizers and in spite of opposition with pure Islam, it has been known as a political and terrorist group and it seems that it has inducted many damages to Iraq and Syria.

The Era of Alignment and Cooperation of America and Russia

The collapse of Soviet Union and the exit of military forces of Russia from Georgia resulted in the reduction of the influence of Russians in that country. This issue also inducted a severe damage to the ability of pro-Russian Georgian political forces in Georgia so that following the occurrence of colored revolution of this country and the appearance of pro West forces in that, a movement of anti-Russian feelings got started in this country the climax of which was observable in the independence story of Abkhazia region and South Ossetia (Alison, 2008). At the same time with the membership bid of Georgia in NATO by the westerners, the Russians also declared their protection from South Ossetia and resorted to military action against Georgia. In fact, South Ossetia crisis can be considered as the consequent of the increase of encounters that had remained of the late of presidency course of Putin and shadowed on the relations between Russia and America (Grigoryan, 2012). These conflicts caused the presidency period of Medodif to be reminisced as a stressful era in the relations of Russians with westerners; but following the appearance of Barack Obama, these patterns were formed in another manner. During this period, the relations between Russia and America which had been formed as a result of the existence of security procedures in both two countries progressed toward balance orientation and limited equilibrium. In fact, the existence of the major regional power like Russia in Eurasia domain had reduced maneuverability of America seriously and the countries of this region organized their relations around Russia. America’s effort in order for using regional regulated instruments confronted the backlash of Russia; but United States, in this era, has tried to retain the continuation of its relation with its regional rings In order to be predominant on power and do the next strategic measurement (Salzman, 2010). Russia after the collapse of Soviet Union in spite of lacking power and its previous effectiveness in international dimensions and with respect to the membership in the security council of United Nations and having widespread nuclear geopolitics power could likewise be effective on America behaviors. This issue resulted in the interpretation of the role of this country before west regarding the manner of face and undeniable procedure (Rumer & Stent, 2009, p. 11). The possibility of cooperative and symmetric interaction between America and Russia in the recent era had engendered whilst stability and balance in the international system needed interaction with other regional and international performers. In fact, differentiation of this era results from the features of performers and the formation of power and military devices and also the mobility of new actors in the international policy domain. In a space which is based on the interaction pattern of great powers, they can organize a change by virtue of which, initially, expression contexts of regional and international program are determined; second, it is bargained about regional and global problems especially the problems having critical outcomes; thirdly, in the competitive space based on cooperation among the parties, effective performers in the international policy will be able to make the final decisions and adopt the impressment in the framework of relevant issues to international peace and security. In the last years of the first decade of 21th century, Russia and America regulated their relations in a manner in order to follow

the background in order for common cooperation by means of observing the existent structural rules of the international system in spite of marginalizing their disagreements; of course, the parties’ sensitivity regarding the limit of competitive space was so obvious in the first years of Barack Obama’s presidency. But these meetings and diplomatic traffics and new contracts again conceded their place to the stronger competitive concepts in bilateral relations. America’s national security document, in the year 2010, in addition to emphasizing on interaction with Russia and accepting global role of this country, announced his intentions in another manner. In such a document, United States wants the Russia to protect peace-oriented processes and by observing international regulations in Europe and Asia introduce himself as a trusted global partner. The reflection of such security stimulations among Moscow politicians required the reflections which were considered as a type of behavioral reaction or the same strategic response. This issue shapes the infrastructure of stimulus response equation regarding expressing security equations of the parties in terms of crisis. This problem was in fact the response of Russians to the subject that security signs and international political power couldn’t be gained through power and influence. In the foreign policy document of Russia in the year 2008 and military doctrine in the year 2010, unilaterally oriented symbols in the international issues were seriously opposed to and the necessity of strong response to the nuclear and non-nuclear threats was confirmed using nuclear abilities. The idea was that this affair happened based on other patterns including organization of the relations and indexation of the relations of all governments in the strategic scene and following the negotiations of February of 2010 between two countries. It was ordained that by the end of 2018 year, the number of strategic nuclear warheads reduce to the number 1550, but missile development of America in the eastern Europe reduced the continuation of the parties’ commitments. Moscow promised the establishment of Alexander missiles in the western Russia and in another action, the arsenals had increased their nuclear missiles (Iran newspaper, December 3, 2011). Aforetime, tacit agreement had been accomplished between two countries in order for the key information of the design to be available to them that this issue faced promise beach of Americans. In this regard, Kommersant newspaper had even announced Russia about the possibility of non-confirmation of the competence of new American ambassador-Mike Mack Ful-by means American senate due to concerning about the delivery possibility of confidential information regarding missile system of America in Europe continent. Also Putin who was in the climax of parliamentary elections prime minister liveried, severely criticized to the Americans’ interference in the internal affairs of Russia. He had accused America of interference in Russia and stimulation of the unrests after parliamentary elections of this country. He declared that west feared of nuclear power of Moscow and therefore, he tried for the planning of colored revolution scenario in Russia. Anybody is nowadays quite familiar with the philosophy of colored revolutions and we also know that its main aim is disturbing the ruling stability on Russia society (Iran newspaper, December 17, 2011).

Foreign Relations of Russia and America and Syria

Syria is known as the community center of three Asia and Africa and Europe continents and in strategic terms, it has a specific importance (international studies department of the ministry of foreign affairs, 2008: 184). By a glancing to the situation of Arabic countries of Middle East, we realize that this is only Syria which plays an independent role in the regional political actions and yet it has its own viewpoint. Additionally, ideological feature of Syria (Baathist ideology namely nationalism and socialism ideology) is one of the factors of reinforcement and internal power of this regime which leads to the reinforcement of national morality. Regarding population, it is also superior to Zionist regime (Israel) and Jordan and Lebanon. The sum of these factors reduced the pressures of internal environment during 33 days war and they were accompanied with a kind of internal stability. The occurrence of revolutions and popular movements in Arab world by the end of 2010 year in authoritarian Arabic countries as strategic allies of Washington created new conditions in the Middle East. These conditions, according to their specific features including people’s contrast with the governments and transformation in the regional discipline, confronted America’s strategic interests in the region with challenge and they forced this country to manage the changes and make strategy in the complex and changing and unpredicted situation. America’s confrontation type with the developments process and the approach of governing regimes and the future of public movements and the existent replacements and security and interests of Israel and inconsistency between strategic interests and democratic principles were among the important issues America had to face. From the time, the movement of Arabic changes started in Tunisia, America leaders put forward different procedures regarding such changes and they tried to manage such changes by accompanying them and in this way prevent long-term interests of America to be endangered in Middle East. According to some people, concerning to the experience of Americans from Islamic revolution of Iran and its future changes, Washington, during this transformation, apparently tried to prevent the renewed repetition of Iran’s experience by keeping aloof dictatorship regimes (Waezi, 2013). War inside the Syria continued for more than 4 years and during which, more than a hundred thousand people were killed and in the midst of international discussions, millions of people were displaced (Laub and Masters, 2013). Regarding the manner of resolving the conflicts in this country, the occurrence of chemical attack in 21th of August of 2013 in the eastern Ghouta region and opponents ‘claim based on Syria government’s utilization from these weapons against their citizens and the massacre of hundreds of people in these attacks caused the most complicated problems. The problems and demands of the people of region not only represent serious concerns and problems of the Middle East governments, but also they have resulted in the great concerns of the governments of other regions (Sajedi, 2013, pp. 157-190). America policy in the Middle East region during the last half century has always been one of the effective components on the scanning and processes and development of changes in this region. Following the occurrence of the event of 11^th September of 2001, a new stage of America policy started in the Middle East which included two important aspects. Initially, the effort in order for weakening or if possible, regime change in opponent countries like Iraq and Iran and second consistency of the policy of gradual creation of controlled reformations in strategic ally and united but authoritarian countries. Political changes of Syria provided a situation for regional and trans-regional powers in order for them to follow their equations and competitions (Waezi, 2013).

The aim of west from the extermination of Assad government on a global scale is the development of its hegemony versus the remaining of east block, and on a regional scale its aim is confronting with growing geopolitics of Iran and resistance front. Following the exit of power from Baath party in Iraq, Iran’s sphere of influence expanded in this country. This very important achievement has resulted in the change of power balance weight in the region in favor of Iran. Nuclear power of Iran is also a nightmare for the powers and international and regional competitors which is considered as a long step in the event of increasing national power of Iran. The increasing role of Iran in Shanghai treaty and weakening of caliph family in Bahrain and other allies of Arabia and the authority of Hezbollah in Lebanon and such and such events all resulted in the change of power balance in favor of Iran and its allies. Regarding this change of power balance, western front tried to overthrow Assad from ruling by abusing public movements of Syria and equipping and importing excommunicated groups and tensioning the Syria (Yazdan & Namdari, 2013, p. 114).

It is noteworthy that America has exploited that in order for the stabilization of hegemony and leadership on world in the international level by magnifying terrorism danger in national level with the aim of increasing popularity. Nevertheless, we observe that realism procedure before leaders and decision makers of America has been reinforced and this country has inclined toward security policies and unilateralism in the international arena. One of the new procedures which is nowadays considered in the analysis of international relations and foreign policy of great powers is offensive realism procedure. In offensive realism procedure, it is emphasized on the power increase as the target and it is also emphasized on hegemonic place in the international system (as the main behavior of great powers) (Mottaghi et. al, 2010).

Since the beginning of 2011, Syria due to having important place in Middle East especially eastern Middle East was exposed to some unrests and in spite of all international efforts, attrition internal war continued in this country and much damage was imposed to this country. This country was also exposed to serious military threat from United States and some of its western confederates and regional allies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar and United Arabic Emirates and Turkey. Experts and pundits of international affairs and Middle East considered historicity as the first feature of the relations between Moscow and Damascus. These historical relations always provide a suitable condition for close cooperation between two parties. Demitry Terenin who assumes the relations between two parties mythical, believes that Russians have never been stranger for Syria (Trenin, 2013). According to this issue, we observe that Russia also tries to get in contact with the opponents of Assad regime in order to prevent violence and bloodshed in Russia and additionally have sphere of influence among the opponents of Syria regime. According to the theory of new classics which considers both internal and external variable, Russia is also searching for retaining its international place and penetration and in this regard, internal factors and the role of decision makers are also effective. In fact, by the re-election of Putin as the president of Russia, we observe the adoption of stronger and more stable positions like anti Syrian veto resolution of the Security Council or transmittal of weapons to this country versus Syria changes (Adami & Akharadin, 2013, p. 66). Russia is among the effective countries in the international system which protects Assad in Syria changes and almost follows its position with a low volatile trajectory. Generally, Russia position regarding the changes of Arabic countries in the Middle East and northern Africa has been mingled with a kind of doubt and this country hasn’t considered the replacement of governments in the region in the current condition in favor of its policy in Middle East and it has treated it as the disruptive of regional stability. Russians have considered such fundamental political changes in favor of United States and its confederates which can have negative effects on the interests of Russia in the Middle East. According to Russians, such changes have resulted in the peaking of extremism in the whole region which is also threatening to Russia. Of course, reaction type and position of Russia regarding the changes of three countries of Tunisia and Egypt and Libya is much different from its reaction and position toward Russia changes. Russia doesn’t have a suitable view to the system change in Syria and in the worst condition it is inclined toward brief replacement of the ruling elites. This problem seems to have been applied by the Russians in one region well and totally they have prevented the wastage of their interests and penetration. Although colored revolutions in some of the newly independent republics were considered as a wonderful change that endangered Russia interests seriously, the changes in fact occurred about the ruling elites who tired within the ruling system, and Russia still retained its interests in such countries (Zargar, 2013, p. 65).

America and Russia’s Interests in Fighting against Terrorism in Syria

At the moment, the interests of America and Russia are convergent in the direction of prevention and reduction of using nuclear weapons and other mass killing weapons and the reduction of great terrorist attacks. Both of these two threats have resulted from instability and violence in the Middle East in which there are organizations such as Islamic government of Iraq and the Levant (Daish) and former al-Qaeda. Both al-Qaeda and Daish have shown much interest to the usage of mass killing and chemical weapons. Both of these two organizations have proceeded to the employment of American citizens and Europe Union countries and Russia for battling in their army and also terrorist attacks. Russia thinks further to the terrorist threat of Middle East especially Daish and considers its territory expansion necessary for the advancement of caliphate. Sergei Smirnov, first deputy of Russia in federal security in September of 2015 has estimated that about 2400 persons of Russia nationals along with Islamic government of Iraq and Levant have battled. Also, 3000 persons of the nationals of central Asia republicans have lied alongside Daish armies. Additionally, Russia nationals and other republicans of former soviet fight in the dependent structures to Al Qaeda in Levant (Saradzhyan, 2015).

Syria in Future

The role of Assad in this political era should be defined and evaluated during the specified negotiations. On one hand, the supporters of United States are wishful for the dismissal of Assad’s power and on the other hand, Russia and Islamic republic of Iran and some countries are the supporter of Assad’s government and Syria people. Of course, following the entrance and role activation of Russia in attacking against Syrian government opponents in the current time, they have retired their former positions and American and European officials and even Turkey have emphasized on the change necessity in Assad power and Assad replacement that such a replacement and resignation doesn’t require to be done immediately, whereas, heretofore, the idea of western powers was so different. The future of Russia changes will be free from violent situation and war and killing, and political conditions of this country will proceed toward a direction in which the opponent groups are able to pursue their political wishes in peaceful direction that of course this achievement is in the first stage in favor of Syria people and its regional and trans-regional changes that nowadays, this look has changed in favor of Syria in the international arena. So, the performers proceed to the way to put the situation in the stage process of power transfer and western powers have concluded that Syria isn’t a government to lose its power by internal war. As long as, bipolar condition hasn’t occurred and Syria government has advocate, this power doesn’t disintegrate and Syria people can affect their future destiny.

Conclusion

Regarding the relations between Russia and Syria in the recent era, we concluded that some problems like Syria unrests which had international aspect were the battleground in which Russia displayed its effectiveness and international scale. Russia firstly is inclined toward political stability in Syria and in the next stage; it is searching for creating any change in Syria by its own nation and under the supervision of United Nations and it shows its opposition with any interference of foreign countries. During this era, different contracts were signed between two countries. Following signing these contracts, the presence of Russian militaries in Syria increased as far as nowadays, almost 35000 Russian citizens attend in Russia. Running away from immediate security threats and the appearance of Daish terrorism in turn increased geopolitical competitions in regional and trans-regional level among Iran and Arabia and Turkey on one hand and Russia and America on the other hand, though, at the moment, all of these performers prefer fighting against Daish regarding regional policy, but it must be admitted that along with that there is also a geopolitical competition for compensating lack of power in the region especially in Syria among all of these performers. When Donald Trump, the selected president of America, in his electoral district clarifies that this country’ policy in Syria should be concentrated on fighting against Daish terrorist group and not Assad regime! Therefore, we can be more optimist to America’s foresight regarding Syria!

Syria president in response to the question of the reporter of RTP Portugal net, regarding the war promise with terrorism and Daish by Donald Trump says that: yet it is not clear for us, how he wants to do this task or whether he will act to his promises or not, and for this reason, we gain confidence for judging him. Particularly, he has never been in a political place prior to this. However, if he wants to fight against terrorists, of course, we will join him and naturally, as we are unified with Russia and Iran or many countries against terrorism, we will also accompany America. It means that Bashar al-Assad, regarding the adoption of clear position, precautions slightly and postpones anything to the future and ahead method by trump’s America, but he also doesn’t stop discussion ways of a comprehensive cooperation, because, he believes that any country which is unanimous with Syria regarding fighting against terrorism can basically be treated a potential federate such as Russia which is considered as one of the most important federates of Syria government and it is likewise against the positions of anti-government armed groups in Syria especially eastern Aleppo. According to the report of IRNA, Trump before defeating repeatedly stated that, unlike Barack Obama’s government, fighting against Daish and terrorist groups in Syria would be priority of Washington. The current government of America, from about two months ago, has stopped cooperation with Russia even for political resolution of Syria crisis the reason of which is Washington’s opposition with the suppression of Al-Nusra front and Daish and other terrorist groups especially near Aleppo. On the other hand, Vladimir Putin “Russia president” and Trump, yesterday in a telephone conversation, in addition to bilateral relations and international problems, investigated Syria situation and the solutions of collaboration in order for fighting against terrorism.

References

*** (2008). Department of political and international studies of the ministry of foreign affairs. Seloori green book. Tehran: ministry of foreign affairs, printing & publishing.

Adami, Ali & Akharaldin, Mehri (2013). Foreign policy of Russia regarding Syria crisis: roots, goals and outcomes (2011-2012). Professional Journal of Political Science, 9^th year, 22th number.

Allison, Graham & D. Blackwill, Robert (2011). Russia and U.S. National Interests, Why Should Americans Care? Center for the National Interest & Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu.

Boozan, Yari (2010). United States and great powers of global policies in 21th century. Translation of Abdul Majid Heidary, Tehran, institute of strategic studies.

Laub, Zachary & Masters, Jonathan (September 11, 2013). Syria’s Crisis and the Global Response. Council on Foreign Relations.

Motaghi, Ibrahim; Baghayee, Khorram & Rahimi, Maysam (2010). Investigating foreign policy of America in the Middle East after 11^th of September (based on offensive realism procedure). Publication of political and international researches, term 2, and number 4.

Nation, R. Craig (2012). Reset or Rerun? Sources of Discord in Russian–American Relations. www.elsevier.com/locate/postcomstud.

Rumer, B. Eugene & Stent, Angela E. (2009). Repairing U.S.-Russian Relations: A long Road Ahead. Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University & Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies School of Foreign Service Georgetown University. www.amacad.org

Sajedi, Amir (2013). Syria crisis and interference of foreign powers. Bulletin of International Relations, term6, number 24.

Salzmann, S. Rachel (2010). S Policy toward Russia. A Review of Policy Recommendations, Designing U.S. Policy toward Russia. Project at the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. www.amacad.org.

Saradzyan, Simon (2015). U.S. and Russia Share a Vital Interest in Countering Terrorism. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu.

Trenin, Dmitri (2013). The Mythical Alliance: Russia’s Syria Policy. Carnegie Moscow Center. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. http://carnegieendowment.org/files/mythical_alliance.pdf, Accessed on21/06/2013.

Vaezi, Mahmoud (2013). Behavioral pattern of America in confronting with the changes of Arabic countries, foreign relations quarterly, 5^th year, number one. Journal of History Culture and Art Research.

Yazdan Panah Dero, Keyumars & Namdari, Mohammad Mehdi (2013). Syria crisis; by emphasizing on the western system procedure and Turkey’s strategy in this country. Two quarterlies of Islamic rouse studies, second year, third number.

Zargar, Afshin (2013). Russia positions regarding Syria changes (2011-2012). Central Asia and Caucasus quarterly, number 8.

News sites, newspapers:

*** (3 December, 2011). Iranian newspaper, history: quivers of missile developments on the relations between Obama and Kremlin.

*** (17 December, 2011). Iranian newspaper, history: number 4964. Putin: Iranian people are tired of America’s tyranny.