By John Ubaldi, “Ubaldi Reports,”

Once President Trump signaled he would begin withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Syria the national security community of both political parties reacted with utter condemnation of this short-sighted strategy, but what was left unanswered, and one that  the United States has not addressed is what is the long-term strategy for the Middle East?

President Trump routinely states the ISIS “Caliphate” has been destroyed but the remains of ISIS and other affiliate groups such as al Qaida, to include a variety of extremist and terrorist organization still survive to fight another day.

Throughout the broader Middle East region that includes South Asia and the Central Asian countries have made no measurable improvement to the political, economic, or the demographic structure which ultimately are the root causes of the instability this was never more evident during the upheavals which was primary spark which lead to the “Arab Spring” revolt in 2011 and continues to this day.

As the Trump administration continues to formulate its Syrian strategy the U.S. will have to factor in the various outside actors, such how this potential new strategy will affect Russia, Turkey, Iran and our Kurdish allies.  Both Iran and Russia have been actively supporting the Syrian government of President Bashar Assad from the beginning by proving both military and financial support with each Tehran and Moscow doing so all for different reasons.

Tehran utilizes Syria as a land bridge by moving military personnel, economic and logistical aid from Iran across Iraq into Syria through to its proxy force of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and to Hamas in Gaza Strip in its ongoing fight against Israel.  Russia’s main level of support to Damascus is based primarily to main its air and naval bases inside Syria, and to gain greater leverage throughout the region in order to challenge the U.S. primacy.

Much of the challenge faced by the U.S. with its Syria policy was the timid response and failure to enforce President Obama’s “redline” when he failed to enforce his own policy with regard to the use of chemical weapons used by Syria against their own people.

The Obama administration often stated that Assad must go, but gave no indication how that was to be achieved nor articulated a concentrated effort how he planned to defeat the Islamic State.

Following an off-handed comment by former Secretary of State John Kerry’s during a press conference which was seized on by Russian Foreign minister Sergey Lavrov relating to Syria turning over its chemical weapons gave Moscow a wide opening to enter the Middle East for the first time in forty years.  This opening would later be used for the Russian military to begin combat operations in stabilizing the government of Assad which was close to collapsing at that point.

Throughout the 2016 presidential campaign Trump’s stated goal was the defeat of ISIS, since becoming president his administration has helped defeat the caliphate, but since it’s collapse has not put forth a strategy for a post-ISIS world.

The question remains is how would the U.S. prevent ISIS from reconstituting itself, since the Sunni cities once controlled by the Islamic State are in ruins?

National security strategists need to understand that the Sunni don’t like the Islamic theocracy of ISIS, much the same way they did not like the same Islamic doctrine espoused by al-Qaeda a few years earlier.

What choice do the Sunni’s have since the Shiite dominated government in Iraq which is influenced by Iran, are unwilling to bring the minority Sunni’s into the government apparatus, this leaves them to reluctantly embrace ISIS or a different terror organization as there protectors since currently Shiite militia’s still patrol Sunni cities.

Since last month Iraq has seen anti-government demonstrations flare up in cities across Iraq as thousands have voiced anger over the rampant corruption, interference by Iran, coupled with high unemployment, poor governmental service and years of economic stagnation.  The Iraqi economy is in a desperate shape as the government of Iraq’s budget which 90% is derived from oil revenue, with half its funding going to a corrupt incompetent government bureaucracy.

Over the years the United States across multiple administrations have focused mainly on an operational and tactical strategy throughout the Middle East region without fully embracing one of the core problems; the lack of sustainable governance.

Currently there are three countries in the Middle East which can be viewed as failed-states, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, and in the broader region you can add in Afghanistan and Libya to the equation.

As Military Analyst Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic & International Studies highlights the common theme that permeates and creates enduring problems in each of these countries;

  • The enduring civil costs of terrorism, insurgency and civil war, and their post conflict impact.
  • The impact of key problems in governance that are often largely independent of a particular leader and the country’s political system – whether democratic or authoritarian.
  • The permeating impact of corruption, which along with security and secure employment/income poll as the three key sources of resentment, anger, and loss of confidence in the regime.
  • The radical ongoing shifts growing out of demographics, population pressure, a major youth bulge, and shifts in the economy and social structure from agriculture and to service, government jobs, industry, and urbanization.

Much scorn has been leveled at President Trump for his Syrian withdrawal strategy, but national security strategists of both political parties have focused on fighting half a war without ever contemplating a broader strategic strategy that reflects the intrinsic weakness common place in the region, instead focusing only on the security aspect but never addressing the failed civil component.

Even during the current 2020 Presidential race each of the Democratic candidates have openly shown distain for Trump’s current strategy, but even they have given conflicting strategies with most advocating ending the “the endless wars” but at the same time they  contradict their own statements by criticizing Trump for removing U.S. combat forces from Syria, then advocate we should remain.  This is confusing!

This lack of a strategic strategy carries over into how the Democratic candidates would deal with Iran especially as it relates to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal.

All the Democratic candidates have been openly critical of Trump for pulling out of the deal and if elected president they would recommit the United States to the agreement. The unfortunate missing component is that they have never have stated or been asked do they plan on lifting the crippling economic sanctions imposed by the Trump administration?

Once the original nuclear agreement was signed by the Obama administration in 2015, which lifted all economic sanctions and sent over $150 billion in frozen assets located in various international banks to Tehran, which Iran thereby used the bulk of this revenue to fund its proxy forces in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and other areas of the Middle East.

Iran has openly stated that it would not negotiate unless all sanctions are lifted, would any of the Democratic candidates running for president lift the sanctions and if they do how would they prevent Iran from destabilizing the region as they had in the past?

As we move forward the U.S. needs a strategic strategy not a tactical and operational strategy, only time will tell what strategy emerges.