IBWT, your last reason is the only one that has any merit imo. It's hard to say what Trump would do in the Middle East. He paints himself as am isolationist who wouldn't allow the US to bear the brunt of other countries' battles. On the other hand, he says he'd kill ISIS by any means even if it involves waterboarding and killing the families of their members.
A big theme in his campaign is that he'd insist that European and Middle Eastern countries should fund any military effort and provide much of the manpower as they are most affected by the current insurgency. Saudi Arabia is the ultimate free rider. Even when it invaded Yemen, it needed Pakistani troops to do the dirty work. With the Oil-producing States already facing drastic revenue reductions, extracting money from them will be problematic.
So would he send in troops to fight on the ground? I'm sure he knows how well that has worked in Afghanistan and Iraq and more importantly the size and duration of such commitments. He'd also be up against the Russians if he sends troops into Syria. Would he team up with Putin and Al-Assad to fight ISIS? Iran is fighting on that side too, so this would very much be a case of strange bedfellows. It would pit the US against Saudi Arabia which is sponsoring the non-ISIS rebels (and Russia is targetting them more than ISIS). Even attempting to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria could spark a military response from Russia.
So would he limit himself to surgical aerial bombing? Newsflash - that's already happening and it's doubtful that there could be any useful increase in these efforts.
Remember, he condemns the US support of the rebellion in Libya which deposed (and killed) Gadaffi. But when he was reminded that he did support it at the time it was happening and called for Gadaffi's removal, he said they should just have had a surgical strike which killed Gadaffi and his advisers.
Sadly, Trump can't just call in the A-Team or Rambo to fix the Middle East.
There's also the question of whether the Middle East's geo-political importance requires the US to intervene. Petrol is becoming less important. The US has increased its domestic production to IIRC 65% of its needs and technological advances both in oil exploitation and alternative energy will see that figure climb. OPEC has lost its ability to restrict supply and consequently push up prices. The oil producers are flooding the market and the price has collapsed. Some Middle Eastern states such as Dubai will run out of oil within a few years. All of them are already experiencing massive cuts in revenue which may well create internal unrest. Does America really need to bog itself down in an area which is losing its geopolitical importance?
Of course, there is a humanitarian issue at play in Syria. But that's also the case in Nigeria and many other African countries. Boko Haram is their local equivalent of ISIS/Al Qaeda. Where is the international intervention? Nigeria has some oil but African countries don't have enough geo-political importance to warrant intervention.
But then you have ISIS' desire to export terrorism and the fact it has caused a flood of refugees which is stressing European countries. Just how is Trump going to go about limiting their influence? Even if he does mount a military intervention and it liberates land occupied by ISIS, would that kill off terrorism? Would it make it safe for refugees to return?' Remember that Iraq is half of ISIS' empire and the US liberated that over a decade ago and the US hasn't tamed the Taliban in Afghanistan either. The reality is that Trump and ISIS would both benefit from a continuing war of words with each driving support for the other in an increasingly polarised world.
A big theme in his campaign is that he'd insist that European and Middle Eastern countries should fund any military effort and provide much of the manpower as they are most affected by the current insurgency. Saudi Arabia is the ultimate free rider. Even when it invaded Yemen, it needed Pakistani troops to do the dirty work. With the Oil-producing States already facing drastic revenue reductions, extracting money from them will be problematic.
So would he send in troops to fight on the ground? I'm sure he knows how well that has worked in Afghanistan and Iraq and more importantly the size and duration of such commitments. He'd also be up against the Russians if he sends troops into Syria. Would he team up with Putin and Al-Assad to fight ISIS? Iran is fighting on that side too, so this would very much be a case of strange bedfellows. It would pit the US against Saudi Arabia which is sponsoring the non-ISIS rebels (and Russia is targetting them more than ISIS). Even attempting to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria could spark a military response from Russia.
So would he limit himself to surgical aerial bombing? Newsflash - that's already happening and it's doubtful that there could be any useful increase in these efforts.
Remember, he condemns the US support of the rebellion in Libya which deposed (and killed) Gadaffi. But when he was reminded that he did support it at the time it was happening and called for Gadaffi's removal, he said they should just have had a surgical strike which killed Gadaffi and his advisers.
Sadly, Trump can't just call in the A-Team or Rambo to fix the Middle East.
There's also the question of whether the Middle East's geo-political importance requires the US to intervene. Petrol is becoming less important. The US has increased its domestic production to IIRC 65% of its needs and technological advances both in oil exploitation and alternative energy will see that figure climb. OPEC has lost its ability to restrict supply and consequently push up prices. The oil producers are flooding the market and the price has collapsed. Some Middle Eastern states such as Dubai will run out of oil within a few years. All of them are already experiencing massive cuts in revenue which may well create internal unrest. Does America really need to bog itself down in an area which is losing its geopolitical importance?
Of course, there is a humanitarian issue at play in Syria. But that's also the case in Nigeria and many other African countries. Boko Haram is their local equivalent of ISIS/Al Qaeda. Where is the international intervention? Nigeria has some oil but African countries don't have enough geo-political importance to warrant intervention.
But then you have ISIS' desire to export terrorism and the fact it has caused a flood of refugees which is stressing European countries. Just how is Trump going to go about limiting their influence? Even if he does mount a military intervention and it liberates land occupied by ISIS, would that kill off terrorism? Would it make it safe for refugees to return?' Remember that Iraq is half of ISIS' empire and the US liberated that over a decade ago and the US hasn't tamed the Taliban in Afghanistan either. The reality is that Trump and ISIS would both benefit from a continuing war of words with each driving support for the other in an increasingly polarised world.
