Why Trump may just resolve the Afghan issue?

It was meant to be the final threat when it was all caps, surely this was it. “NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE”, he tweeted. “NEVER EVER”, in all its finality.

The first part of the tweet drew more of a teenage Liam Neeson-esque figure from an equally teenage version of the movie “Taken,” where Neeson threatened the kidnappers of his daughter via Twitter instead of the usual phone. Mr Trump drew the metaphorical literary guns for the latter half of the tweet. He condemned Iran’s “DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH.” Departing from Neeson, Trump toned it down, still in all caps yet maintaining the seriousness of the situation.

And finally the old reliable tool of giving a stern but fair warning came to use, a tool seasoned international statesman have used since long to ensure international peace. Trump’s warning “BE CAUTIOUS”, still in all caps, was finally followed by an exclamation mark, so that the Iranians surely took to Trump’s seriousness.

The Iranians, one of the most ancient and richest civilisations in the world, had little choice but to interpret Trump’s tweet for what it really was, an incredibly serious, all caps, ultimate warning, coming from the president of a nation whose most famous exports may just be guilt inducing yet addictive fast food chains and long inconclusive wars, strictly in that order. With the Americans, you’re always on either end of the diplomatic spectrum, on the “good” end, they flood your markets with the aforementioned fast food chains with overpriced milkshakes, on what surely is the bad end, they flood your markets with highly-trained marines and M16s, it’s quite binary really. Few countries manage to be in the middle of this spectrum. I’m not sure if Tehran has a McDonald’s yet, I doubt it. Even if it does, surely the aforementioned tweet wasn’t meant to put Iran in the fast food end of the spectrum.

But wait.

Just weeks after the all-caps nuclear version of a Twitter threat, Trump was ready to put Iran potentially on the fast food end. To be clear, weeks after the all-caps tweet Trump offered to meet the speakers of the “DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH”, “anytime they want to” and “without any preconditions”. The shock that followed was somewhat diluted by now considering Trump’s similar treatment of the North Korean leader on Twitter which ultimately ended with jaw-hurting smiles from both leaders as they met, after he had called him “little rocket man”. I’ll go on to make my case for Trump, but surely if someone got a world leader to de-nuclearise after calling him “little rocket man”, surely there’s something he’s doing right, but let’s carry on.

After a tirade on Twitter as Trump talked about Iran he said, “I’ll meet with anybody. I believe in meetings.” And therein lies the revolution.

To most though, this was less of a revolution and more of an usurpation of the “way of doing things” in the international diplomatic quarters. The anti-status quo guy turned out to be really very anti-status quo. But this is interesting and Trump gets much less credit than he deserves for his style and for being a “believer in meetings”. If a different American leader at a different point in time had come up with this phrase and then met with a North Korean leader, getting him to denuclearise the most rouge regime in the world, surely he would have gotten much more credit. Perhaps “believing in meetings” would be taught at the Fletcher School as a module in an international diplomacy course. However, by being a “meet-er” Trump has brought about more changes in international relations than most of the past US presidents. This is not at all to say the meetings turn out well all the time, ask the Europeans and they will tell. And the promise of a simple initial meeting may not seem much to the Europeans, but to Afghans it can be the precursor for change they have yearned for decades.

When Trump overthrew the American political order and became president, Afghanistan wasn’t too sure about the development. Here was a president who would drop the veils of diplomacy and openly and unpredictably berate his allies and enemies alike on social media. It put governments all around the world in precarious positions.

With Afghanistan, as the Taliban wrestled with Kabul for territory, Trump indicated increasing US troops in the country leading people to assume further elongation of an already elongated, tragic conflict that has ravaged the country. And surely, the troop surge came, the Taliban in retaliation went on a murderous rampage again, and most surely the Afghan people suffered even more.

For previous administrations that would be it, a troop surge would simply mean a plan to take on the Taliban. With Trump though, it implied that the “believer of meetings” also jetted out seasoned diplomats to explore talking to the Taliban.

A few weeks ago, in a reversal of the longstanding US policy of not talking to the Taliban, senior US officials reportedly met with Taliban representatives one-on-one in Doha. This meeting had followed a ceasefire in Afghanistan between Kabul and the Taliban as the nation celebrated Eid in relative peace after years. And surely as images of Taliban fighters exchanging flowers with Afghan citizens and the police poured in, more than a few eyebrows were raised at the obvious paradox of a three-day ceasefire with a group as prolifically murderous as the Taliban.

This is where Trump offers the unconventional hope. This is why he may just resolve the Afghan conflict. His willingness to be unorthodox, unpredictable, glaringly inconsistent and most importantly “a believer of meetings” might be just what is required to end a conflict as orthodox, predictable and tragically consistent as the Afghan war. While meeting with the Taliban may not be as savoury as seeing them submit to Kabul and Washington for all the years of blood that has been spilled, it may be a distasteful yet vital exercise for peace in the region. Trump’s willingness to meet and talk to the very enemies he threatens and berates is important. To bring peace to a protracted conflict, surely no stone should be left unturned, regardless of the international norms and opinions. Peace in Afghanistan should surely be for more than just three days a year.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 11^th, 2018.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.