When Donald Trump was elected as the 45th U.S. President, there was reason for some comfort amongst the United States’ traditional Arab allies in the Middle East, with hopes of a stronger stand against their adversary Iran.
“They’ve been measuredly optimistic about the Trump administration, in part because of the tough stance on Iran, and in part because they think the President will be open to striking deals with them,” says Jon Alterman, Director, Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “They felt neglected by the Obama administration, and they think they have a chance of not being neglected by this one,” he adds.
Only two weeks into the administration, there are no defined policies yet on the Middle East, but a series of statements from the Trump team—putting Iran “on notice,” potentially moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and introducing a travel ban—are raising concern and questions about positions it may take.
Stance on Iran
Iran has been in the firing line of the Trump team since the campaign. That’s been backed by strong rhetoric in the early days of the administration.
Last week, Iran was included in an immigration ban that temporarily stops people from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States. This week, came a new set of sanctions and a stern warning from National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.
Flynn put Iran "on notice" on Wednesday, citing a recent ballistic missile test and its backing of Houthi rebels in Yemen's civil war, who have attacked U.S. allies.
Iran's Foreign Ministry insisted that the missile test was "solely for defensive purposes" and not a violation of the UN Security Council resolution, which bars Iran from testing "ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons."
But on Friday, the U.S. Treasury Department announced the financial sanctions against 13 people and a dozen companies.
A year ago, the Obama administration imposed similar sanctions on a series of companies and individuals involved in Iran's ballistic missile program after Tehran conducted two test launches of ballistic missiles.
“Trump resorting to sanctions like Obama will send out a message to Tehran that nothing really has changed in Washington, and all threats by U.S. officials are barks without bites,” Riad Kahwaji, CEO of Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis (INEGMA).
Mehdi Khalaji, Libitzky Family Fellow at The Washington Institute, says it’s too early to judge Iran’s views on the Trump administration because Tehran is “still in a state of confusion about what is the new U.S. approach to Iran.” But Kahwaji believes that so far, “Iran views the Trump Administration as weak and inexperienced.” “They see the daily marches in many parts of the U.S. and the on-going spats and see inability to function with strength,” he adds. That was evidenced in a live TV address this week, where Iranian President Hassan Rouhani dismissed Trump as “new to politics.”
“He has been in a different world. It's a totally new environment to him," said Rouhani. "It will take him a long time and will cost the United States a lot, until he learns what is happening in the world," added Rouhani.
Kahwaji says Iran is likely to continue provocations “betting on the divisions in U.S. and the European allies.”
“Iran will rely on Europe and Russia to prevent Trump from tearing up the nuclear deal and will rely on the divisions in U.S. and in NATO to prevent Trump from taking any successful hostile action against it,” he says. He also believes “Iran will likely drag U.S. into unwinnable scenarios, like getting some its proxy militias in Iraq to kidnap American servicemen deployed there, or to attack U.S. bases.”
But Khalaji argues that if Washington takes confrontational action on the ground, Tehran may rethink its actions in the region. “For Iran, the red line is military confrontation,” he says. “If they think that this threat is not limited to just words and there will be practical consequences for Iran, then yes, they would back off.”
“They [the Iranians] use inflammatory rhetoric against the United States, but if they are approaching a state of war or military confrontation, they become extremely cautious. Iran cannot afford even minor military confrontation,” he adds.
A Move to Jerusalem
It started with Trump’s campaign pledge to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem “to send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable ally, the state of Israel,” he said in a speech last March.
The status of Jerusalem and whether it will be split between Israeli and Palestinian authorities is one of the core issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A move would signify official U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, threatening prospects of a two-state solution and potentially inflaming Arab-Israeli tensions in the region.
“Let’s be clear, if the embassy is moved to Jerusalem, you can probably hang a ‘closed-for-the-season’ sign on the peace process for a while,” said Aaron David Miller, former advisor to multiple Secretaries of State, to The Cipher Brief.
Jordan and Egypt, the only two Arab countries with peace treaties with Israel, were quick to warn against the move.
On a visit to Washington this week, a statement from King Abdullah II of Jordan “stressed the need to consider the ramifications of such a decision and the anger it could cause among Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims." It added that a move would not only risk a two-state solution, but “it might end up being used as a rallying cry by terrorists.”
Speaking at a media briefing on January 4, Egypt’s Foreign Minister Samed Shoukry said, “It is our interest that all issues are resolved through negotiations.”
“I don’t want to indulge in speculation about what might or might not happen, but I think everyone recognizes the importance of this issue,” he said.
The message may have prevailed.
“Moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem will rekindle the Arab-Israeli struggle and even the struggle between Islamic states and Israel,” says Kahwaji. “It will be very bad timing, a counter-productive move by the Trump Administration, and will be foolish for Israel to press for this step now.”
After his inauguration, the President spoke to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to extend an invitation to visit Washington. The potential U.S. embassy move was also rumored to be discussed, but White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer dismissed those claims and tempered expectations saying the administration was “at the very early stages of that decision-making process.”
Spicer also issued a statement on Israeli settlements Thursday, saying they "may not be helpful" in achieving peace between Israelis and Palestinians. But unlike previous U.S. positions, he also did not see current settlement activity as “an impediment to peace.” Overall, the statement did reflect a marked difference in tone, from previous Trump comments that did not object to settlement activity.
The future of Jerusalem may still emerge as a sticking point, with Trump’s choice for ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, as a long-time, staunch supporter of moving the embassy.
Alterman says the move may not be in the works immediately, but it could be seen as a win-win for either side. “I’d expect a Jerusalem office of the principally Tel Aviv institution, and it will expand slowly,” he says. “But as a least common denominator, I’d expect something proponents can call victory this year, and opponents will waive high for years to come.”
Controversial Travel Ban
Trump’s executive order last Friday, to temporarily ban U.S. entry for people from seven predominantly Muslim countries—Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen—sent shockwaves through the Middle East and protestors to the streets across the United States.
Iran immediately threatened to reciprocate with a ban against American travelers. Iraq toyed with a similar prospect but Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi later said, "We are studying (possible) decisions but we are in a battle, and we don't want to harm the national interest," given the need for U.S. air and ground support in Iraq’s fight against ISIS militants.
The response in the rest of the Arab world has so far been muted.
“Gulf countries, especially Saudi Arabia, seem to be regarding Trump's travel ban as a U.S. sovereign and internal matter and not aimed at Muslims,” says Kahwaji.
None of the Gulf Arab countries were included in the ban, even though the executive order refers to the 9/11 attacks, and 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.
In the United Arab Emirates, the foreign minister played down the order. "This is a temporary ban and it will be revised in three months, so it is important that we put into consideration this point,” said the UAE Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan.
He also said the U.S. was within its rights to take what he said was a "sovereign decision" on immigration.
The Gulf Arab view, may change, however, if the travel ban expands or if there are security implications on the ground. The Trump administration is adamant that the order is not a “Muslim ban,” but as Former Acting Director of the CIA John McLaughlin said to the The Cipher Brief, there’s no question that “terrorists can pump it into their propaganda machines. Look for it in the next ISIL and al Qaeda recruitment videos.”
Khalaji says actions like the travel ban also play into the hands of Iran’s leadership. “The Iranian government is trying to show its people that this is not about animosity between the United States and the Iranian regime, but the United States has a problem with the Iranian people,” he says. The message is ‘They want to isolate you, each Iranian citizen’,” he adds.
And as the world waits to see whether the Trump administration’s rhetorical postures develop into concrete policies, the Administration’s messages are already reverberating through the region.
Leone Lakhani is executive producer and reporter at The Cipher Brief. Follow her on Twitter @LeoneLakhani.
