To outline the contours of the decision with which the White House moved some troops from the Turkish-Syrian border, but to go even further, outlining a picture of the particular period that President Trump is experiencing, interviewed Germano Dottori, professor of Strategic studies at the Luiss in Rome and author of “Trump’s vision” – an analysis on the current presidency.Yesterday the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, said in an interview with Pbs NewsHour that the United States did not authorize the Turkish offensive in Syria, but it was necessary to move the American soldiers because they were in danger in the face of the ambitions of Ankara. Pompeo says the US will continue to do “what is in America’s interest”. What is in the interest of the US right now and how it fits into the complex ecosystem of the region
That the US did not formally authorize the Turkish attack on Syria is safe. However, by withdrawing their troops, they made it technically possible, encouraging its launch. Recep Tayyp Erdoganit had been aiming for this result for years, being hostile to the consolidation of Kurdish autonomy in northern Syria, right next to Turkish Kurdistan. The strongman of Ankara would even have imagined conducting a militarily protected ethnic engineering operation to Arabize Rojava. The dynamics of the telephone conversation between Trump and Erdogan are not yet completely clear. But it can be assumed that, having listened to the intentions of the Turkish leader, the American President took the opportunity he was looking for to finally force the hand of his generals and order the definitive repatriation of American troops from Syria. However, he ran into a reaction whose magnitude he had underestimated. The Kurdish cause also has sympathizers in the United States, despite the fact that in Rojava it is played by guerrillas who dream of establishing a communist state in Kurdistan. Hence the need to put lipstick on the pig, of which the contents of the interview given by Pompeo seem to me the consequence. However, it should be noted that the ongoing debate in America on the country’s interests in the Middle East is very complex. There are realists who believe it is important “regardless” to rebuild the strong relationship that the United States had with Turkey.George Friedman, for example, substantially justified Trump’s choice with the need to separate the Turks from the Russians and Iranians: but and so
I doubt that these were the intentions of President Trump, who is only interested in extracting American troops from all theaters of crisis. more challenging. Among other things, negotiations with the Taliban have also resumed. Moreover, it is a long-term trend that began well before Trump’s coming to power. Which will probably continue even without him, perhaps with a smarter narrative, unless there are changes in the moods of Americans. In fact, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are also very hostile to “endless wars” and casual military interventions(two strong democratic contenders, ed). As for Joe Biden , he was Obama’s Deputy, the President of “driving from behind”. Only the neoconservatives and the Clintonites remain attested on the old agendas. Let’s broaden the speech: yesterday Senator Lindsey Graham wrote a tweet in which he contested what he calls a sort of new “American isolationism” and argues that it is wrong to entrust the fight to IS to Russia or Turkey. How to read the position taken by Trump with the lens of his vision
. Graham belongs precisely to the group of Republican parliamentarians most sensitive to the neo-conservative appeal. Like John Bolton(the former National Security Advisor, ed), Graham also preferred to approach Trump to condition him, giving up opposing him. But it is an unhappy marriage, the one between the neocons and the Jacksonian president, destined to end in a very conflicting divorce, from the “war of the Roses”. Former National Security Advisor threatens explosive memoirs. And there are those who believe that it is one of the moles that are engulfing Trump. Graham can instead pilot an uprising when the impeachment issue reaches the Senate.Let’s talk now about the general picture behind Trump: there is a relationship with the party that is not gaining momentum, there is the impeachment issue, there are decisions like this on Syria that congressmen and apparatuses like intelligence do not like, c ‘and the electoral campaign for Usa2020. What divides the president from re-election
Trump was for the Republicans what in Italy we would call a “foreign pope”: the alien arrived from space who won against all odds the nomination in 2016 in spite of the party establishment, taking advantage of its internal divisions. After the election, out of opportunism, many aligned. But it would be wrong to assume that Trump has indeed conquered the party with which he reached the White House. And he remains an isolated, expression of very strong currents among Americans far from power, but nonexistent in academia, business and high administration. All the reports of the internal affairs of the administration tell of permanent seditions, which the president is unable to control.To be used to help re-election
The campaign for re-election is obviously of very uncertain outcome. With the economy in great shape, the president lost the mid-term elections last year by eight million, more than double the gap in the popular vote recorded in 2016. And it was a personal political defeat, since that he had chosen to turn that vote into a referendum on himself. Now there is the grain of Ukraine (the phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky from which the impeachment procedure starts, ed) and others could be added. Trump is weak, the system perceives him and tries to liquidate him. To complicate matters further, the next election is likely to take place in the midst of a downturn in the business cycle.

Previous articleWho dreams of a Great Center with Brunetta and Calenda?
Next articleHow to cut the bangs according to the shape of the face so as not to regret the change of ‘look’