Most analysts attribute the reactions to two
main factors:
1. Statements made by
candidate Trump during the campaign about support for Israel on the one hand
and possible US isolationism on the other.
2. A widespread belief
throughout the Muslim world that a president Clinton would be “very
sympathetic” to their interests, causes and business affairs thanks to exceptionally
large donations to the Clinton Family Foundation, and the fact that Huma Abedin,
who grew up in Saudi Arabia and has close ties family to the Muslim
Brotherhood, would have had unfettered access and influence in the Oval Office.
As Trump’s inner circle begins to take shape
the Israelis are happy with his assumed choice for Ambassador to Israel – his senior advisor
David Friedman, who
said in an interview this week that: “Trump believes that everyone in Israel -
from people on the right to people on the left – want peace. No one wants their
children to continue to be killed in wars”, adding that in any negotiations,
with the Palestinians: “Trump will let Israel lead…he won’t force Israel.”
And while there is initial concern with the
choice of Stephen Bannon as chief strategist because of alleged past
anti-Semitic comments, commentators here observe that though he is a strong
supporter of Israel, he will be involved mainly in domestic policy (“cleaning
the swamp”). Trump said that Bannon and Reince Priebus (incoming chief of staff)
would work "as equal partners to transform the federal government."
Trump’s possible foreign policy doctrine, especially
regarding the Middle East, is a mixed bag. I tend to agree with senior analyst
Ron Ben Yishai, who wrote this week in Ynet that “Trump and the Russians will
agree to fight the Islamic State together, but Trump will let the Russians help
Bashar Assad win.
This means that the radical Shiite axis led
by Iran, with Russian aid and defense, will tighten its grip and its strategic
abilities in the Middle East in general, and particularly in the ‘Shiite spectrum’.
This is very bad for the State of Israel and it is also bad for the Arab Gulf
states (which supported Clinton).”
Regarding Iran, Trump will probably not cancel
the nuclear agreement. However over here they feel strongly that it’s possible
that he will accept Israel’s requests to tighten the intelligence supervision
on Iran and to respond to any violation on its part with serious sanctions and/or
military action.
According
to Ben Yishai, the Trump administration and Congress will “also generously
accept Israel’s arming requests so that the IDF would be able to respond with
all its might in case Iran makes a breakthrough towards a nuclear bomb.”
As for the “Peace Talks” Analysts here agree
that, the two-state-for-two-people formula will likely enter a deep freeze for
a long time, at least until there is a leadership change with the Palestinians.
As I mentioned above, Trump will probably not try to impose any solution or
even peace negotiations, certainly not based on Israeli concessions only.
As of this writing, we’re still waiting to
find out who the Secretary of State will be, and if that person will have the
skills to reestablish respect for, and confidence in the United States as a
world leader to be trusted and respected in a very volatile Middle East…
No comments:
Post a Comment