The Israeli-Syrian-Iranian conflagration last week has led to extensive analysis over what each player has at stake and what interests have guided their action. But it appears that no one is talking about what role the U.S., the world's superpower, has in the grand scheme of things.
Despite President Donald Trump's decision to bolster defense spending, we must keep in mind that he is a neo-isolationist who has looked at the threats facing the U.S. through a very narrow prism. As such, his policies have focused almost exclusively on what serves the U.S. national security interest.
Thus, even though the White House is determined to spend heavily on fighting terrorism and countering the nuclear threat posed by Iran and North Korea, it has simultaneously tried to unilaterally disengage from global flashpoints.
Trump has viewed the U.S.'s longstanding strategic alliances with great suspicion, fearing they could lead to American entanglement overseas that would distract him from his domestic agenda, which is his real focus.
This behavior has led to an American paradox vis-à-vis Iran: On the one hand, Trump has threatened to pull out the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran if it is not amended, but on the other hand, he has shown a lack of resolve in the face of Iran's growing influence in the region and its increased threat to Israel.
The administration is essentially resigned to Syria becoming Iran's satellite state that is well within the Kremlin's sphere of influence. Thus, not only does the administration have no intention of increasing its military operations in the fight against the Islamic State (which has also strained its relations with Turkey as of late), it has continued to ignore Syria's repeated breach of red lines through its use of chemical weapons.
Apart from the barrage of missiles Trump fired on Syria some 10 months ago, the Syrian crisis is light years away from the White House's strategic radar. This is perhaps one of the few policy areas where Trump has continued to march along the same path set by his predecessor Barack Obama, whose weakness in this arena opened the door for Russia. Trump, like Obama, has refused to change the rules of the game in Syria.
A new U.S. policy toward Russia is much needed, as this may ultimately help resolve things in the long run, reduce the Iranian presence in Syria and lead to a new leader in Damascus. But the U.S. has not been willing to step up to the plate and create this new order that would enhance stability and end the bloodshed.
This passivity can probably be attributed to domestic issues. Striking a rapport with the Russians would be interpreted as a fulfillment of a promise made by Trump to adopt a pro-Russia foreign policy, especially because of the ongoing going Russia probe at the Justice Department, led by Robert Mueller.
Thus, the administration's hands are tied on this matter, particularly because any deal with Moscow may lead to the scaling back of sanctions in exchange for having Putin show more flexibility in the region and put pressure on Iran. It appears, then, that the degree to which crises are resolved on the world stage is very much dependent on the state of domestic affairs in Washington.
