Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Trump Sending ‘Good Signals’ on Syria, but the Devil Is in the Details

Sputnik – 14.11.2016

US President-elect Donald Trump has indicated that tackling Daesh will be a key priority for the incoming administration, prompting many to say that Washington will withdraw its tacit support of the Syrian rebels and work with Damascus instead. Professor Alexander Azadgan told Radio Sputnik that these are “good signals.”

“He had some interesting general policy statements, but as you know the devil is in the details. We’ll have to see how he actually implements even the generalities that he talked about,” Azadgan, Professor of Strategic Global Management and International Political Economy, said. “These are good signals. However, saying that ‘we are going to fight [Daesh]’, that’s not good enough. Everybody is fighting [Daesh], even Washington’s fighting [Daesh].”

The analyst urged policymakers in Washington to “change their vocabulary” when it comes to Syria, particularly the Syrian rebels.

“There is no such thing as a Syrian rebel. We’ve got to throw [this word combination] out of our vocabulary. There are mercenary, lunatic Wahhabis from everywhere around the world, especially Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries. They are neither Syrian, nor rebels. They are terrorists and savages.”

Trump appears to have questioned the concept last week when he said that “now we’re backing rebels against Syria and we have no idea who these people are.”

Azadgan expressed concern that Washington was not ready to listen to other countries with regard to resolving the Syrian crisis.

“I don’t think that Washington has good will to want to compromise or have some kind of fruitful negotiation. I think they are just buying time. Every time Washington says that they are going to negotiate, they create a false flag operation, like the bombing of a Syrian convoy that happened two months ago,” he said. “I don’t think they are interested in peace whatsoever. They are into prolonging this conflict. … It’s very dangerous. And war, even planned war, never goes right.”

The analyst was referring to an attack on a UN humanitarian aid convoy in mid-September, a week after a ceasefire brokered by Russian and American diplomats had entered into force. The incident took place near Aleppo, with the US swiftly blaming Moscow and Damascus. The Russian Defense Ministry provided detailed information disproving these allegations.

Azadgan suggested that Washington’s foreign policy could change once Trump is sworn in as the next US president. “We could reason that maybe Washington has realized that these policies are unsustainable and that they are going to have some face-saving change in policy. We have to talk about this potential,” he said.

The analyst further compared the present-day situation with regard to Syria to Serbia a century ago, saying that we are at a dangerous stage when global powers have taken different sides in a local conflict, which could have global implications.

Trump’s apparent willingness to limit to an extent Washington’s engagement overseas is a good sign.

“If you have cooler heads in Washington, if you have people expressing slight forms of isolationism, this is good for world peace. More importantly this is good for American taxpayers who have seen their taxes being plundered in the Middle East by policymakers, who are illiterate, imperialistic and hegemonic.”

November 15, 2016 - Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , ,

1 Comment »

  1. Poor article that says basically Donald Trump is saying the right things but will he do it. The refrain that can be applied to any US president at any given moment in time.
    Also I find part of the title, “the Devil is in the details” just covers the overt embarrassment of Alexander Azadgan that he and Trump agree on this issue as if trying to distance the stain on his reputation. (Of course, I espouse 100% what he comments on the “Syrian rebel”.)
    Donald Trump has said many bad things and one or two good things in his election campaign. If he fulfills the one or two good things (US military expenditure reduction and altered overseas strategy and US infrastructure refurbishment) I think he will have been better than all US presidents since the 1970s.
    IMHO Hillary Clinton would have brought us to the verge of a nuclear war and would not have given a tinker’s cus for the situation of the ordinary US citizen.
    I’m not quite sure which twisted universal plane of pseudo enlightenment Donald Trump is evolving on but I have a gut feeling that the words “nuclear war” do not echo there as much as in the cesspool of moral and ethical corruption in which Hillary Clinton and her family abides.

    Like

    Comment by redracam | November 15, 2016 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.