Tehran Times: Why has Donald Trump changed his isolationist stance for an interventionist one?
Daniel Pipes: When he became president, Trump was a celebrity businessman with strong opinions but no in-depth knowledge of U.S. foreign policy. As president, he quickly faced decisions bearing major consequences (such as what to do with the JCPOA) and he realized that his prior opinions did not suffice as a basis for policy, that he had to rely on specialists. The specialists he relied on held very divergent points of view, some consistent with his own, other not, being from the foreign policy Establishment. Seven months into his presidency, it appears those Establishment voices have prevailed; thus, the interventionism.
TT: Is the Russo-American competition for influence, power, and arms sales the reason why Middle East crises (Syria, Iraq, Yemen) have lasted so long?
DP: No. It's a long-standing Middle Eastern habit to blame the region's problems on outside powers - Great Britain and France in the old days, the United States and Russia now, no doubt China in the future. But a closer look finds that outside powers are generally limited to exploiting opportunities that the people of the region make available.
Applying this pattern to the present: The crises in Libya, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan are all local in origin. In each case, internal differences – ethnic, tribal, religious, regional, ideological – caused ruptures that tore these countries apart, leading to an anarchy that invited in both regional actors and great powers. Only when the Middle East puts its own house in order will outside intervention diminish.
TT: What needs to happen for the Middle East to enjoy the blessings of peace?
DP: That's a big question! The Middle East was a relatively quiet place in the Ottoman-Safavid period, before the challenge of modernity hit with full force, challenging everything from family relations to economic activity to the nature of government. Modernity, especially starting with World War I, turned the region upside-down.
In many ways, the region is still working out the major changes of the World War I era (1911-25), including the collapse of the Ottoman and Qajar dynasties, Atatürk's and Reza Shah's secular legacies, the coming into existence of Libya, Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan, the setting of boundaries for Syria and Iraq, the absence of a sovereign Kurdistan, and the spread of Wahhabi doctrine.
Only when Middle Eastern states become fully democratic will the region enjoy the blessings of peace.
