Unpopular decisions

The newly elected president of the United States Donald Trump has marked his electoral campaign relying on the eternal "need for security" that haunts the American people after September 11. The foreign policy of its predecessor, judged to be weak and inconclusive, weighed on the fate of Hillary Clinton who, to tell the truth, never showed particular strength, despite the polls having judged her the winning candidate. Now Donald Trump is a reality and with all due respect to the "radical chic" American world (including Hollywood) one has to deal with it.

Apparently, from the 2017 onwards, we will witness the rebirth of a different but, above all, safer America, with thousands of immigrants stationed at the borders waiting for a visa or a pass through the land where "every dream can become reality". THE'Immigration Executive Orders signed by the president aroused the indignation of the whole world and also a legal offensive against him by five Federal Judges, who blocked the order, stealing it as an anti constitutional. Trump and his entourage reacted by accusing the judges of endangering national security, giving a dangerous "green light" to terrorists from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen¹.

The freezing of borders has created technical problems, but above all has opened several "moral" cases which have served as fuel for the large anti-presidential front. But looking beyond the question that many people ask themselves is whether this is the right way to stop the terrorists? In a few lines posted on his page Twitter, the American president partially justified his move by warning the public about what had happened in Europe, particularly in France and Belgium, but also in Germany by taunting Angela Merkel and her strategy of hospitality. His judgment, however, especially in the eyes of a European, appeared rather superficial, since he associated two concepts - immigration / terrorism - which are not at all connected, even when it comes to irregular immigrants. The connection between the two phenomena certainly travels on a very thin line of demarcation, however for the threat jihadi it is only a marginal problem to cross a border also because the Muslims who undertake the path of extremism have grown up and live within the country for several generations. Trump's decision seems more like an angry reaction to the policy of his predecessor who, while multiplying the drone attacks, favored social interventions, intervening on the motivations that drove a Muslim into the arms of ISIS or the Islamic State .

Boaz Ganor - Israeli director of theInternational Institute for Counter Terrorism and adviser to Benjamin Netanyahu - he commented on some points of the possible Trump strategy towards terrorists, without foreseeing such a reaction. Ganor himself reiterates that any action against the Islamic State and its affiliates, however hard it may seem, is a good choice, nevertheless it reminds President Trump of "must to be careful not to give up efforts to address the motivation behind to be as well as to have to find other ways to harness the silent and pragmatic"². Ganor therefore cautiously espouses the theory expressed by Obama who had drawn a clear break between Islam tout court and terrorism: a propaganda that certainly has cost the elections to the democrats. More than anything else, the director of the Israeli center reiterates the fundamental concept of the "multidimensionality" of the struggle against the Islamists, focusing on the need for a commitment to 360 ° with the help of the whole Western world and beyond.

In principle theexecutive order of Trump is consistent with his electoral promises, although he hides serious errors of assessment and a certain superficiality. In a recent article appeared on Foreign Affairs by Title The Wrong Way to Stop Terrorism, the authors document, evidence in hand, how the authors of the latest misdeeds, are a case disconnected from immigration considering them rather an effect of radicalization, discrimination and lack of assimilation³. This is partially true, but if we trace the identikit of other terrorists who have acted alone (Lone Actor Terrorism) or in small groups on the streets of European cities, we realize that categorization is a very risky and misleading game. Let us not forget that there are numerous Muslims who have crossed the European and American borders to create activities, work, respect rules and religion and those who radicalize themselves - fortunately - still remain a minority.

The other controversy raised by the Trump provision concerns the names of the transcribed countries on the "black" list and the fact that no terrorist act in recent years started from one of the countries in question. The questions then expand on why in the Blacklists Saudi Arabia has not been included by blaming the sinister presidential opportunism, since "they are ones in which he has done business or sought to make deals"⁴. Perhaps many people forget that both Obama and his predecessors have always adopted a policy of convenience towards Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates; it is too simple to point the finger at Trump, it would be reductive, if anything the analysis should involve American politics as a whole⁵. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, up to Barak Obama have been careful not to crush relations with the country responsible for being the first financier of terrorism, disguised as an ally. The same discourse, but for different opportunities, touches Egypt and Lebanon.

If Trump's anti-terrorism policy conceals pitfalls, his historical analysis of the West / Islam confrontation gives a glimpse of a somewhat clouded perception of the problem. In one of his speeches the American president equates the Cold War to the fight against terrorism by referring to an alleged "ideological struggle"⁶. Besides being anti-historical, the approach of Trump is a tangible sign of his distorted vision of the motivations that animate terrorists. In the first place, the Cold War was a struggle between two legitimately elected states, administered by two opposing political models among which, however, there was a glimmer of dialogue. This is a substantial fact since it shows that the relations between the two superpowers were regulated by something that went far beyond the fear of nuclear power, that is to say a sort of political ethics that pushed them anyway to look for a form of communication avoiding the Armageddon. America and the Soviet Union have always been "conventional" enemies. Diplomacy, debates like disputes, respect for certain values ​​are concepts detached from the modus operandi of Islamist terrorism, but above all there is no state reality with which to confront. Al Qaeda, rather than the Islamic State, are considered apocalyptic terrorist organizations, which do not care to sit at any negotiating table because their objective does not include any kind of compromise.

Trump supports Assad by winking at Putin in an anti-ISIS function and at the same time adopts a stricter policy towards Iran. It is certainly too early to make any sharp judgments on the foreign policy of the new administration, it would be rushed and not very correct, nevertheless we must grasp some contradictions which - it should be emphasized - are not a Trump prerogative. The fact remains that the first moves against terrorism seem a little confused, although there is no doubt among terrorists, immigrants and refugees about who is actually right.