It is unlikely that US President Donald Trump will abandon his long-term goal of withdrawing from the Middle East, even after the crisis of the killing of the Quds Force Commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Qassem Soleimani, and the question that arises now: What are the consequences of America’s exit from the region? ?

The crisis triggered by Trump's killing of General Soleimani led to the crystallization of Iran's official thinking about only one demand, that the American military forces package their military assets, close their bases, and leave the Middle East forever, the strange thing is that Trump seems to agree with that.

Referring to the retaliatory strikes against American targets, last week, Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, declared that "this military action is not enough, and the important thing is to end the corrupt American presence." The Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, said that the only answer is "the expulsion of all American forces from the region." This old Iranian stance is not very different from Trump's views, at least in theory. The American president has repeatedly argued in favor of reducing the presence of American forces in Middle east. Last fall he made decisions in northern Syria that produced chaotic results, annoyed the allies, and delighted Turkey, Russia, and the Syrian regime.

Trump has never suggested a comprehensive retreat. In the case of Israel, he sought to strengthen political and security ties. However, based on his speeches and tweets, he is not convinced by traditional arguments that underscore the region's vital strategic importance to the United States.

It is true that part of his position is ideological, and another part expresses his intuition. When Trump pledged in 2016 to end "America's wars forever" in his presidential campaign, he was referring specifically to the legacy of his predecessors, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump described both campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan as wrong, a waste of lives and money, and for him, liberal ideas of the kind promoted by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair about the international community as one community, the need for "humanitarian intervention", and nation-building - all of these Ideas for Trump are hollow ideas.

Trump is concerned with markets and not morals, he has no vision of the overall good, and he has no sense of a global mission for the United States, other than putting America first. Speaking, last week, of a hypothetical rapprochement with Iran, he remained focused on business, Iran's untapped economic potential and its natural resources.

There are other reasons why the United States is not considering maintaining a large-scale military presence in the region, and one of the reasons Trump mentioned last week is that the United States is now less dependent on imported oil.

The former US president, Jimmy Carter, developed a principle after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, called the "Carter Doctrine", and it is that the region (and its oil) is a real reserve of the United States. And «any attempt by an external force to control the Arab Gulf region will be considered an attack on the vital interests of the United States, and will be repelled by any necessary means, including military force.»

Indeed, Carter was supplementing the status of the United States after 1945, and post-Britain, as a leading foreign power in the Middle East, whose power grew over time. But times have changed once again, thanks to the shale boom, the United States has become the world's largest crude oil producer. Supply lines in the Middle East are no longer so important.

Geopolitical priorities are changing as well, with the United States currently focusing on China as an economic and military competitor, and on defending its interests in the Asia-Pacific region, rather than focusing on curbing Russian influence or reforming the Middle East, and Trump believes his allies in the region Like European NATO members, they should be more self-reliant, and happy to sell expensive American weapons to this end.

The United States is certainly concerned about Iran's behavior, terrorism and extremism. Trump is trying to gain a good reputation by brokering a peace deal in Palestine. But Beijing's military expansion, its belt and road diplomacy, and open trade corridors in the South China Sea are all of Washington's biggest long-term concerns.

On the Iranian side, the request to leave the Americans did not arise simply from old grievances, due to the 1953 coup against the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, although he plays a role in that. Moreover, Iran does not want the United States out so that it can only operate in the region with absolute freedom, although it is unlikely that it will abandon its ambitions as a strong regional mediator. There is a firm belief in Tehran, common in colonial areas, that the Middle East as a whole will be better off if it is no longer a place for major power struggles, foreign armies, and imperialist interventions. Most educated Iranians are instinctively pro-Western, not Arab. But post-1979 US retaliation prevents normalization. There is also reason to believe that the warring states of the region may solve their differences more easily if the United States no longer exists in the region. If the United States no longer is a reliable advocate for its friends, and if it no longer needs to be in the Middle East, then it is surely time to leave. But if the Americans withdraw, what will happen?

Iraq and Syria

The recent events in Iraq and Syria do not encourage confidence in the post-America future. After the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011, the United States and its allies in the region supported disparate opposition forces, but some of these forces included extremists, which reinforced the claims of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that he was fighting Extremists, and was able to divide the resistance. The United States withdrew its support for the opposition forces in favor of Assad, and it refused to intervene directly when Assad crossed the "red line" that Obama had drawn for his use of chemical weapons. Since then, Trump has rushed to disengage the United States, especially by abandoning the Syrian-Kurdish allies. This is why Russian President Vladimir Putin has filled the void, and Russia now supports the Assad war by bombing Idlib harshly.

In the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, US forces officially left the country in 2011, but in reality there are still several thousand of its soldiers, whose primary mission is to fight ISIS. After Soleimani was killed, the Iraqi parliament demanded that all US forces leave. However, there are doubts about the ability of Iraqi politicians and the Iraqi security forces to protect a country that the ISIS organization is still present inside, and many fear a horrific scenario of what could happen when the United States turns its back and withdraws.

Israel and the American withdrawal

A comprehensive American military withdrawal would be a painful experience for Israel, and it would try to avoid it, which is "surrounded by enemies", and despite Israel's ability to defend itself, weakening the symbolism of America's protective shield would be a blow that might encourage Israel's opponents.

For these and other reasons, it is almost certain that any withdrawal of US forces from the region will be accompanied by additional US security guarantees to Israel, including a mutual defense treaty as proposed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, recently. Supporters of Israel in Congress will ensure that the country is not abandoned. At the same time, this shift may lead to a reset in which Israel has remained in dire need, due to the political stalemate, which weakens the hard-line nationalist supported by Trump, led by Netanyahu, and opens the way for a middle coalition more willing, for example, to conclude a two-state agreement Just with the Palestinians.

Afghanistan

The seemingly endless conflict in Afghanistan, which began with the US invasion after the Al Qaeda attacks in September 2001, is one of the most important disturbances of President Donald Trump's political life. Trump says billions of dollars have been wasted without justification in building a chaotic and corrupt state that has failed to provide security or organize an effective democratic government, and has caused record levels of civilian casualties.

In 2017 Trump began sending additional forces, like his predecessor Barack Obama. When he failed to do so, he resorted to secret negotiations with the "Taliban", which ended in a miscarriage at Camp David. The main problem was the Taliban’s insistence that US forces leave the country, before a cease-fire with the Afghan government was reached or negotiated with. And since the Taliban are unlikely to back down, it is likely that Trump or his successor will eventually be forced to issue a withdrawal order, even if this leads to fundamentalist control. The problem, in such a case, is that much of the Afghans ’gains will be lost, and that their sacrifices for nearly 20 years will be in vain.

Donald Trump has repeatedly argued in favor of reducing the US troop presence in the Middle East.

The recent events in Iraq and Syria do not encourage confidence in the post-America future.