Syria and Iraq in the Next US Presidential Debate

The upcoming, second debate between Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump could tackle more substantial issues compared to the first debate - which served more to get familiar with Trump's personality and was a test for Clinton's. The battle of Mosul may impose itself on the debate too, since the incumbent President Barack Obama decided to increase the number of US troops in Iraq in preparation for the offensive. This is a matter of consequence for most Americans, regardless of whether or not they understand the implications of the battle. Syria will impose itself no matter how much the candidates try to keep the issue away, if the Obama administration follows through with its threat to end cooperation with Russia in Syria. The terror attacks of 9/11 will jump to the forefront, casting their shadow on US-Saudi relations as Congress has now overridden Obama's veto of a bill allowing Americans to sue foreign nations including Saudi Arabia in US courts. Scandals could also rear their heads through WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange with the - tacit - backing of Russian president Vladimir Putin, who will seek to rescue his favorite candidate Donald Trump. Trump will be seeking some kind of revenge over the controversy stirred by Clinton concerning his past with former Miss Venezuela and Miss Universe Alicia Machado dating back to 1996. Machado exposed Trump for how she says he mistreated her for having gained weight, calling her Miss Piggy and Miss Housekeeping, an apparent slur over her Hispanic heritage.

In Mosul, preparations have compelled Obama to approve an increase of US troops deployed in Iraq he said would be the last. The goal is to bolster efforts for the push on Mosul imminently, at the request of Iraqi PM Haider al-Abadi and in coordination with the Kurdish Peshmerga forces. Liberating Mosul from ISIS will not be impossible, but it will not be easy, given Iraqi divisions and mistrust regarding the post-ISIS order in the liberated regions.

Indeed, Shia militias are a major cause of concern for the Sunni-majority cities. Another is the issue of the return of displaced residents. Past experiences in this regard have been bitter, especially after the liberation of Fallujah, because of the atrocities that took place. Some Sunnis even believe the threat from Shia militias is equivalent to the threat from ISIS. If the Obama administration does not wake up to this aspect, it would be investing in pouring oil over the sectarian fires in Iraq. It might be even accused of doing so deliberately.

Abadi will involve the militias in the battle, believing he has no other choice but also in compliance with Iran's wishes. Most likely, he will consent to a leading role for the commander of the Qods Force General Qassem Soleimani, who has conducted himself as though the battlers in Iraq are Iran's own. Tehran has invested a lot in the battle of Mosul, given the city's proximity to Syria and Kurdish territories, with one eye on Turkey and one Syria.

Turkey has become a key influencer of the course of the wars in key Syrian cities like Aleppo, and Iraqi cities like Mosul. In Iraq, Turkey has historical considerations and bilateral calculations, as well as those related to the Kurds, Turkmen, oil resources, and broader geopolitics. However, the current priority for Turkey is Syria. Yet this does not invalidate the high level of importance everyone is assigning to Mosul, from Turkey to the Gulf States, and the US to Russia.

Turkey will not be present in the presidential debates, because American voters are not well aware of the complicated geopolitical intricacies of regional and international relations. By now, they may have all but forgotten about what happened in Turkey during the failed coup attempt.

The Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has not forgotten. He continues to use all the means at his disposal to extract concessions from the US and Russia, in partnership with the GCC states on the basis of joint interests. He insists on his national priorities, such as combatting Kurdish groups he believes are a threat to Turkish national security.

Vladimir Putin understands the centrality of Turkey in the war in Syria. Despite his concerns and suspicions vis-à-vis Erdogan, he is gearing up to visit Turkey, perhaps to preempt any attempts by Erdogan to forge military partnerships with the Gulf countries especially with regard to arming the Syrian rebels.

The Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Nayef, discussed in Turkey this week various bilateral and regional issues, led by Syria, in light of the apparent split between the US and Russia over the crisis there.

Gulf ministerial sources who had attended the stormy meetings in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly said that efforts for a "Plan B" have begun in earnest. Such a plan would have three legs: Gulf, Turkish, and European, all stakeholders left out in the US-Russian arrangements.

According to the Gulf minister, who asked not to be named, "We are in contact with France and Britain and are mobilizing support for Plan B in case the ceasefire collapses." Yet the question on the mind of Gulf leaders is: has the time come to implement Plan B or not yet?

The minister rejects the claim that the Gulf, Turkey, and Europe have no cards. "The United States and Russia are parties, not mediators," he adds, insisting that the Syrian issue should not be a way for the two powers to manage their relations as has been happening. The minister also said any solution without Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar will not succeed, stressing that there are real options under Plan B, including no-fly zones, safe zones, and arms for the Syrian rebels.

The minister explained that there is a need for a European umbrella for these efforts, which is why talks are underway with European powers, especially permanent members of the UN Security Council, upset by US-Russian unilateralism in Syria led by France and Britain.

There is a military part and a diplomatic part in Plan B. Internationally, "the priority is for a no-fly zone and a safe zone." Regionally, the opposition must be supported because as things stand Russia, Iran, and the regime are only offering for the opposition to surrender, the minister says.

The minister believes that there can be no US-Russian accord, or regional-international accord, as long as the key contention is how to define its terminology. For instance, Russia insists on excluding ISIS and the ex-Nusra Front from ceasefires using a generalist designation that includes many rebel factions. The minister said the US is also addressing the issue of separating terrorists from rebels very vaguely. As for the Russians, "they want Aleppo to surrender with the rebels disarming and leaving."

"There is no common ground or shared language between the Americans and the Russians." The minister also said that when the US proposed mechanisms to reduce violence, there were still differences over how to draft them. Hence, he continued, there was no force backing the implementation of the agreement, and no mechanism for monitoring, "which means the agreement is worthless".

He referenced the idea of a freeze, in the sense of those who seize territory from ISIS go on to control it. He expressed concern of the idea of neutralizing the rebels before liberation, saying this was the main thrust of current interventions: neutralizing the rebels to allow proxy forces to control territory captured from ISIS then freezing the conflict. He also expressed concern over opening corridors for the rebels to evacuate, saying they were traps to push them to surrender.

The minister said the Gulf countries would continue to push for a ceasefire but also for a monitoring and accountability mechanism to rein in violators. If the efforts fail, he said, then the work will shift towards a Plan B. In the end he expressed hope the US would follow suit, but said US reluctance to do so is also being factored in.

The US is preoccupied and is unlikely to join any such plans. The Obama administration may choose to disengage from Russia, but it will not be implicated on the battlefield in any scenario. Its main concern are the presidentials, and the Democratic administration in the White House will not give the Republican candidate any leverage to use against Hillary.

Trump may find that his cozy relationship with Putin could backfire, especially amid talk of Russian intervention in the elections. If Putin decides to use Assange's services to embarrass Clinton, this could harm Trump even more than his slurs against the former Miss Universe did.

Clinton is uncharismatic and over-rehearsed to the point of sounding like a robot, in her attempt to prove her experience. She knows Trump can turn the tables against her, but his problem is his temperament and buffoonish attitude.

Perhaps Trump will learn his lesson by the next debate. And perhaps by then the US voters will have decided which candidate is the lesser evil.


Translated by Karim Traboulsi
http://www.alhayat.com/opinion/Raghida-Dergham/17643605#sthash.zAxEiPyU