“Let it be an arms race,” Mr. Trump told MSNBC

Trump Makes Foray Onto Obama’s Turf

President-elect wades into foreign policy before taking office, setting up confrontation between outgoing and incoming administrations

By   Carol E. Lee and Peter NichoUpdated Dec. 23, 2016 7:20 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON—President-elect Donald Trump is upending the modern convention that the U.S. speaks with one voice on foreign affairs, plunging into some of the most sensitive national-security matters before he takes office.

Mr. Trump has launched a series of challenges to President Barack Obama’s policies on nuclear weapons, China and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, setting up a rare and increasingly public confrontation between outgoing and incoming administrations.

Mr. Obama on Friday brushed back pressure from Mr. Trump to block a United Nations Security Council resolution harshly criticizing the expansion of Israeli settlements. Mr. Trump on Thursday called on the administration to veto the resolution. But Mr. Obama instead chose to break from longstanding U.S. policy and allow it to pass.

“There’s one president at a time,” said Ben Rhodes, a deputy national-security adviser. He said the president believes “it’s important that the world understands who is speaking on behalf of the United States until Jan. 20.”

Mr. Trump took to  Twitter after the vote, saying: “As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th.”

While Mr. Obama’s move suggests it may be difficult to eclipse a sitting president who has said he intends to “run through the tape,” Mr. Trump’s policy pronouncements as president-elect could send mixed signals to America’s allies and partners overseas about who is in charge, experts and analysts said.

Mr. Trump signaled soon after the election that he planned to take a different posture during the transition, when he took a protocol-breaking phone call from the president of Taiwan.

The White House was caught off guard and fielded angry protests from Beijing.

Jon Alterman, a national-security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Mr. Trump appears to be using his transition to test the waters on some issues. “It feels to me partly like he’s just thinking out loud trying to imagine what a Trump foreign policy will be,” Mr. Alterman said.

Brian Katulis, a senior fellow focused on national-security issues at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, said Mr. Trump is deviating from a longstanding tradition that ensures “continuity” in foreign policy even when the presidency changes parties.

“What he’s signaled on a number of different fronts since his election demonstrates that he has an unorthodox and unconventional way of dealing with the world,” Mr. Katulis said.

“It’s deeply unsettling to a number of our longstanding partners.”

Ken Duberstein, a chief of staff under Republican President Ronald Reagan, countered, saying Mr. Trump’s approach could pay dividends. The president-elect is “basically signaling to the world the way he will conduct things once he is in fact president,” he said. “It’s reassuring to many of our allies and it is setting the stage for an understanding from our adversaries that there will be a new sheriff in town.”

Mr. Trump has just this week waded into two of the most hot-button foreign-policy issues, both raising the prospect of expanding America’s nuclear arsenal and, at the behest of Israel, pressuring Mr. Obama to veto the U.N. resolution.

Mr. Trump said Friday that he wouldn’t shrink from a nuclear-arms race, doubling down on his tweet a day earlier saying the U.S. needs to expand its nuclear capabilities. “Let it be an arms race,” Mr. Trump told MSNBC “Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski. “We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.”

Mr. Trump’s top spokesman, Sean Spicer, later sought to play down the interview.

But Mr. Trump’s comments—which followed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s statement that Moscow needs to build up its military, including nuclear weapons—are reigniting concerns among critics that he lacks the temperament for the presidency.

“The words presidents speak or tweet or write can send armies marching and markets tumbling,” said David Axelrod, who was a longtime adviser to Mr. Obama and supported Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. “I think there was this hope or expectation that the weight of the presidency or the impending presidency would sober him and this is evidence that that’s not the case.”

Rep. Adam Schiff, the top ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence committee, expressed alarm at the casual tone Mr. Trump is using to discuss major changes to the nation’s defense posture and security policy.

“These opaque, oracular statements that are coming out of his Twitter account are the subject of multiple interpretations and they’re a dangerous thing to do as president-elect,” said
Mr. Schiff. “They could be a potentially catastrophic thing to do as president.”

Also on Friday, Mr. Trump released a letter he received from Mr. Putin, in which the Russian president says he hopes that “we will be able—by acting in a constructive and pragmatic
manner—to take real steps to restore the framework of bilateral cooperation in different areas as well as bring our level of collaboration on the international scene to a qualitatively new level.”

Mr. Trump responded to what he called “a very nice letter from Vladimir Putin” with a statement saying, “His thoughts are so correct. I hope both sides are able to live up to these thoughts, and we do not have to travel an alternate path.”

—Ben Kesling and Byron Tau contributed to this article.
 

How Russia, Iran and Turkey see the future of post-war Syria

How Russia, Iran and Turkey see the future of post-war Syria
December 22, 2016 Nikolai Litovkin, RBTH 

Russian observers say that the three countries have grown tired of the Syrian conflict and are now preparing to address the problem without waiting for the West and other regional actors.

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu has announced that specialists from Russia, Turkey and Iran are working on drafting a joint action plan for Aleppo following a meeting of the three nations’ defense ministers in Moscow on Dec. 20.

The final document of the meeting, the so-called Moscow declaration, will lay out urgent steps to promote a settlement of the civil war in Syria following the recapture of the country’s second largest city by government troops.

Despite their desire to put an end to the Syrian hostilities, each of the three actors has its own vision of how the crisis should be resolved and how a post-conflict Syria should look. It also appears, if Russian analysts are to be believed, that Syria's post-war future will become reality fairly soon.

“The hostilities will continue for about another year, after which the first signs of Syria's future state system will become visible,” Vladimir Yevseyev, a military expert and deputy director of the Moscow-based CIS Institute, told RBTH.

Yevseyev believes there will be a redistribution of political power between the offices of president and prime minister in Syria, making the latter a more influential figure. In addition, some of Syria's regions will gain more rights and autonomy, but the country is more likely to remain a republic than turn into a federation.

Russia's position

Moscow wants the situation in the region to stabilize, and also wishes to limit its involvement in the Syrian conflict, according to Russian experts.

“Russia is calling for elections to be held after the end of the crisis, and for the drafting of a road map to restore Syria,” said Yevseyev. “We will continue to involve [Syrian] settlements into the peace process, and to create corridors for the withdrawal of militants.”

Russian experts say that Moscow's primary objective is not only to achieve security in Syria but also to restore the country economically. On the other hand, Russia does not want to go it alone on this: It expects other nations to share the burden.

However, according to Yevseyev, there is also a certain self-interest in Russia’s ambitions for Syria, with the boosting of Moscow’s military presence in the region another priority.

“We also want to establish a foothold in the eastern portion of the Mediterranean,” he said. “We already have Khmeimim air base in Syria; in the future we will turn our naval supply and maintenance base at Tartus into a full-fledged navy base.”

Turkey's position

During the Moscow talks, Turkish Defense Minister Fikri Isik described the operation to take back eastern Aleppo from rebels opposed to Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad as having been “very successful”.

Nevertheless, a number of Russian experts are skeptical as to Turkey's contribution to the Aleppo offensive. Semyon Bagdasarov, director of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Central Asia, said in an interview (in Russian) with the online news publication Vzglyad that pro-Turkish units had actually taken part in the defense of eastern Aleppo, and also that it was the Turkish military that had organized counter-strikes from the direction of Idlib and Homs, and had attempted to breach the government blockade around the city.

Bagdasarov enumerated Turkey's key objectives in the Syrian conflict: overthrowing Assad; setting up a Turkish-controlled quasi-state with its capital in eastern Aleppo; and also destroying the foothold established by the Syrian Kurds.

According to him, Moscow in principle is prepared for the emergence of a Kurdish quasi-state in Syria, but there are fears that such a state would be constantly at war with Damascus, “with all the associated problems that would entail”.

Not all Russian experts agree with this view. Prof. Sergei Druzhilovsky of the Department of Oriental Studies at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations told RBTH that Ankara's position has changed significantly in the past six months, since the failed coup in Turkey, and that the Turkish authorities have even found common ground with Iran, whose views used to be diametrically opposite.

“Al-Assad represents Syria's Alawite ethnic minority, which accounts for about 10 percent of the population, and there are 12 to 15 million Alawites residing on Turkish territory,” said Druzhilovsky. “Domestic conflicts have prompted [Turkish President] Recep Tayyip Erdogan to revise his policy on Syria, as well as on some parts of his own country's Shia population.”

Iran's position

Druzhilovsky believes it is important for Iran that Al-Assad retain his presidency: “Any other president is likely to change Syria's policy on Tehran dramatically,” he said.

Syria's attitude towards Israel is a sensitive issue for Iran, Nikolai Surkov, assistant professor at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations and an expert with the Russian International Affairs Council, told RBTH.

“Iran would like Syria to fight Israel, and to provide its territory for supplying arms to Hezbollah,” said Surkov. “Tehran's position is that any figure to replace Al-Assad should be prepared for maximum cooperation with Iran.”

Vladimir Yevseyev, however, does not believe that Iran will have any direct influence on Syria's future policy: “For the time being Iran remains Syria's economic sponsor; it plays but a secondary role militarily,” he said.