U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meet on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly today in New York.
In a brief joint press availability President Trump stated an optimistic outlook, “an absolute go”, toward the potential for a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas.
CTH readers will note the ongoing quiet diplomacy that has been a foundational block of the Trump administration from day-one. In an under-reported recent development Hamas has agreed to hand Gaza to a unity government of the Palestinian Authority.
Those who follow the mid-east closely will note the need for Hamas and the P.A. to align in singular voice was a precondition to the stabilization efforts of Egypt when President Fattah al-Sisi negotiated cease-fire terms in 2014. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were cut-out from the conversation that eventually led to that cease-fire.
After the 2014 terms were negotiated, Egypt quickly created a miles-long buffer and removed all of the Hamas terror tunnels which stopped weapons and rockets from being able to flow into Gaza. Again, this strategic approach was severely under-reported in western media; however, that proactive action has led to where things stand today; Hamas was cut off from it terror funding network with Iran.
Is there a possibility for peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority? Yes. Even Abbas has admitted that President Trump -and the coalition he has formed- has presented the greatest possibility for peace in the region in decades.
Western media are severely negligent in looking at the long-term strategy for stability and peace that President Trump has created as part of his foreign policy doctrine. It’s stunning in consequence and remarkable in its outcome.
The Trump Doctrine is unique in that our president assigns correct ownership of the issues to the regional allies and adversaries that surround the individual problem. Trump doesn’t withdraw the U.S. from the issue, but rather engages appropriate ownership of the nation(s) whose interests are most directly related to the matter at hand.
♦President Trump forces NATO allies to own their own stake in their own collective defense. Specifically as it pertains to Europe and their unity concern about Russia. Trump doesn’t withdraw from NATO but rather forces EU nations to own their own regional security.
♦President Trump forces Pakistan to own their stake in stability with Afghanistan. Trump demands that Pakistan influence the extremists within the Taliban to the table of negotiation. Such placement of responsibility is critical. Again, Trump doesn’t withdraw the U.S., but rather assigns responsibility to the key players. Simultaneously Trump embraces and draws in India as closer ally. This puts China in a position of influence over the behavior of Pakistan (china heavily invested there), or China runs the risk of Trump replacing the U.S./China economic relationship with India.
♦President Trump forces the Gulf Cooperation Council (Gulf States, GCC) to own their stake in bringing the extremists within the Muslim Brotherhood under control. Trump doesn’t withdraw the U.S., but rather outlines the expectation that Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates and Oman take lead and pressure the Brotherhood’s enabler, Qatar. The U.S. supports the GCC and their efforts, but the ownership is directly assigned to the GCC to create the necessary peace.
♦President Trump forces China to own their stake in North Korea. Trump understands that the DPRK is essentially a proxy province of China and accurately demands that China own the problem. This is new for China, they have never been held accountable for their enabling of the DPRK and the economic leverage President Trump wields is forcing them to: 1) drop the panda mask, or 2) show the world their duplicity. Again, the embraced Trump relationship with India (PM Modi) shows China (Xi Jinping) they can easily be replaced; if they choose the wrong path.
In each of these examples President Trump is using economic leverage, there are actually many more ongoing. This is the 30,000/ft understanding of the Trump Doctrine of assigning ownership to the group with the highest vested interest, and then applying the economic leverage of the U.S. toward achieving the objective.
President Trump is not poking the mouse through the maze, rather he changes the location of the economic cheese and the mouse travel changes accordingly.
I’ve never seen any geopolitical strategy so effective in my lifetime; and specifically because of this effectiveness I personally hold great optimism that a mid-east peace deal will actually be reached between Israel and the P.A.