How do Middle Eastern countries view Trump's "Mu Ban Order"

1, stick to prejudice, cater to "silent fear", avoid big countries and pick "soft persimmons"

Q: Trump's entry ban on refugees and citizens from seven countries in the Middle East caused an uproar around the world. Why did he choose these seven countries?

A: The Trump team said that these seven countries were chosen because the Obama administration identified them as "the countries where the most concerned terrorists gather". Trump said that this policy is the same as Obama's policy of prohibiting Iraqi citizens from applying for asylum for six months in 20 1 1 year. Trump repeatedly stressed that the ban is to protect Americans, and "not to ban all Muslims, as the media deliberately misreported."

However, according to the list of 180 people arrested in the United States for making or planning terrorist attacks since the "91/incident" provided by the Wall Street Journal, 8 1 people are Americans or legal residents, accounting for 85%. Only 1 1 people come from seven countries on the ban, and half of them were born in the United States. In addition, there are 18 people from Saudi Arabia, more than the sum of these seven countries. And since "9. 1 1", none of the major terrorist attacks in the United States were committed by people from these seven countries. Therefore, opponents believe that Trump's ban can be said to have fulfilled his promise to his supporters during the election campaign, or to reflect the "US priority" position, or simply to see these countries unhappy.

The author believes that the ban first stems from Trump and his team's consistent prejudice against Muslims. 20 15 1 1 After a series of terrorist attacks in Paris, France, Trump said that Muslims in the United States should register and issue "special identity cards". After the shooting in California on February 20 15, Trump further stated that Muslims should be "completely banned from entering the United States until we know the situation." When signing the ban, Trump once again said that the United States should stay away from "radicals."

Secondly, Trump showed great prejudice against Muslims during the campaign, but he still won the election. After the ban was introduced, 47% of the American people expressed their support, which shows that there is indeed a serious "Islamophobia" in the United States and concerns about the security situation. Trump is under the banner of "anti-terrorism" and "protecting American security", to some extent, to attract supporters. Professor mercy of university of detroit mercy in the United States believes that "belittling Muslims is not only a signal sent in a campaign, but also Trump's winning strategy."

Third, although Trump believes that "Mu Banling" is a continuation of Obama's policy, he obviously has his own considerations. "Mubanling" has avoided countries with greater regional influence, but Iran is an exception.

First of all, Trump himself doesn't like Iran. From the beginning, he opposed Obama's signing of a nuclear agreement with Iran, and there were also powerful anti-Iranian forces in the United States.

Secondly, since Iran, Syria and Iraq on the list belong to Shia-ruled countries, banning people from these countries from entering the United States should not cause a strong rebound in the Sunni-dominated Islamic world. Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia and other countries are unstable and have limited influence in the region.

Third, from the actual situation, the number of refugees and immigrants from seven countries, especially from Iran, Iraq and Syria, has increased rapidly in recent years. Judging from the development of the situation, the Trump team's prediction of the reaction of the Islamic world is quite reliable, but it is obviously unexpected that there is such strong opposition among American and Western allies.

2. The Islamic world reacted calmly and could not unite again.

Q: How do Middle Eastern countries view Trump's ban? What are their countermeasures?

A: After the ban was introduced, the overall reaction of the Islamic world was relatively calm. The New York Times commented that the Muslim countries "remained surprisingly silent". Many Arab League members have been affected by this ban, but the Arab League only indicated that it would pay more attention to the unreasonable restrictions of the ban. Other countries that are not included in the ban, especially some regional powers, also keep a low profile or even silence. King Salman of Saudi Arabia telephoned Trump, but did not make a public statement. Egyptian President Seyce did not say a word.

This, to a great extent, reflects the increasingly divided Islamic world and the fact that countries are preoccupied with their own affairs. Since the change in the Middle East, the original geopolitical pattern in the region has been broken and the new pattern has not yet formed. Major countries are busy coping with the new changes in the regional situation and a series of challenges brought by the shift of strategic focus and policy adjustment of the United States in the Middle East. Most of the countries hit hard by the changes in the Middle East are still struggling in the predicament of national political and economic reconstruction. Against this background, although countries in the Islamic world are generally dissatisfied with the discriminatory policies of the United States, they have been unable to hold a group to issue a unanimous protest.

More precisely, the people in the Islamic world are already angry with the United States, and most politicians are still struggling and distressed about how to deal with the new American government. A professor at Beirut University commented that Muslim leaders "are walking a tightrope between the anger of their own people and the anger caused by the President of the United States".

Among the seven countries on the ban list, Iran has the strongest rebound. After Trump's ban was promulgated, Iran launched a medium-range ballistic missile, which is the first time Iran has tested a ballistic missile since Trump took office. The United States subsequently announced new sanctions against Iran, but the Iranian military conducted missile and radar tests in the military exercise the next day.

In addition to anger at the ban itself, Iran's strong emotions are also mixed with concerns about the fate of Iran's nuclear agreement and the future direction of US-Iran relations. However, there are indications that Iran subjectively does not want to see the relationship between the United States and Iran return to confrontation again, let alone see the Iranian nuclear deal weakened. After Trump's ban was introduced, Iran said it would ban the American wrestling delegation from participating in the wrestling World Cup held in Iran this month. Recently, however, the official Iranian news agency has sent a clear message that Iran will issue visas to the American delegation so that it can participate in the competition as scheduled.

Other countries on the list also expressed their dissatisfaction and disappointment with the ban to varying degrees, but on the whole, they could not come up with effective countermeasures. On the one hand, these countries have limited national strength and influence, on the other hand, they cannot get rid of their dependence on the United States.

3. The United States mainly relies on "oil and water" to maintain its strategic relationship of "overall contraction"

Q: After Trump takes office, what policy adjustments may be made to the hot issues before the Middle East?

A: The US Court of Appeal ruled that it refused to restore the effectiveness of Trump's "Mu Ban", so this matter should not continue to ferment in Islamic countries. However, a series of words and deeds since Trump took office have added a lot of uncertainty to the future development of the situation in the Middle East. In fact, not only in the Middle East, Trump's "uncertainty" has become a worldwide problem.

As Trump gradually enters the role of president, his basic attitude on some Middle East issues has begun to become clear.

First of all, judging from Trump's repeated emphasis on "US priority", it is obvious that the new US administration will not shift the focus of US foreign strategy back to the Middle East as predicted by some analysts. On the contrary, Trump will continue to adopt the strategy of "comprehensive contraction". Because returning to the Middle East will greatly consume the resources of the United States, and it will also make Trump's plan of "making America great again" fail.

Second, Trump will make anti-terrorism and combating Islamic State extremist organizations the focus of current US Middle East policy. The United States has expressed its hope for more cooperation with Russia and other countries in the Middle East, which means that Trump may adopt a more balanced policy stance on Syria and other issues than the Obama administration.

Third, compared with the Obama administration, the Trump administration will build more relations with regional countries from the interest level rather than the strategic level. Trump's main consideration for excluding Saudi Arabia and other countries from the ban is because these countries maintain inextricably linked interests with the United States. Relatively speaking, due to the confrontation in the past few decades, the interests of Iran and the United States have less intersection, which is one of the main reasons why Trump does not hesitate to "cut the knife" with Iran. Obviously, the relationship between the United States and Iran will obviously cool down in the future.

Trump has little interest in countries with few "oil and water" such as Egypt, and relations with Israel will undoubtedly heat up. After Trump took office, he first called Netanyahu to finalize the latter's visit to the United States in February this year. The Israeli government explicitly supported Trump's "Mu Ban Order" at the first time. Israel recently took the opportunity to forcibly pass the controversial settlement bill in an attempt to force the Trump administration to strengthen US-Israel relations. Israel's strength and Trump's ambiguous attitude on these issues make people doubt whether Trump can make a difference on the Palestinian-Israeli peace issue.

At present, the relationship between the United States and Iran seems to be facing a great test, but the author believes that Trump will not let the relationship between the United States and Iran return to the tense situation in the past, because the Iranian issue has not become the policy focus of the Trump administration. The new sanctions imposed by the United States on Iran are more symbolic than practical. Iran is unwilling to take the initiative to destroy the Iranian nuclear deal, so it will not give the United States an opportunity to further weaken bilateral relations.

In addition, although Israel is trying to use Trump to expand its advantages on the Palestinian-Israeli issue, the Trump administration will not listen to its willfulness. During Trump's campaign, he said that he would move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, but he did not take action after taking office. In addition, after the Security Council passed a resolution condemning Israel's settlement expansion in June 5438+February last year, Trump said that the United States should use the veto to stop this resolution. However, after Israel recently pushed the settlement bill again, Trump rarely criticized Israel. White House spokesman spicer said that although the United States does not consider Israeli settlements as an obstacle to peace in the Middle East, it still believes that Israel's actions of building new settlements or expanding existing ones are not conducive to achieving the above goals.

It can be seen that although the Trump administration's policy on the Middle East issue is still unclear, from its subjective position and possible restrictions, there will be no fundamental changes in the future Middle East policy of the United States. At the same time, the Trump administration has paid less attention to ideology and is even willing to adopt a more balanced disengagement policy. In a sense, it is not necessarily a bad thing for the Middle East.