Amy Austin Holmes is an Associate Professor of Sociology at the American University in Cairo. She began teaching there in 2008, after finishing her PhD at Johns Hopkins University. She has been awarded fellowships from Harvard University, Brown University, and was a Fulbright scholar in Germany. Her research focuses on the intersection of contentious politics and security issues, broadly defined. Her book Social Unrest and American Military Bases in Turkey and Germany since 1945 was published by Cambridge University Press; she also directed an accompanying documentary film. Having spent a decade living in the Middle East through the period known as the Arab Spring, she has published numerous articles on Egypt, Turkey, Bahrain, and the Kurdish regions of Iraq and Syria. Her articles have appeared in the Washington Post, South Atlantic Quarterly, Journal of Arabian Studies, Social Movement Studies, and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, to name a few. She has given TV and radio interviews with NPR, BBC, Al Jazeera, and other outlets. She has testified in the House of Lords of the British parliament on the situation in Bahrain. she is currently a fellow at Woodrow Wilson center in Washington DC. In an interview with our Magazine, we asked her some questions regarding the recent developments in the Middle East, and she answered them as the following:

Q- How do you characterize the situation in the Middle East? And what are the most troublesome trends and worrisome developments the region is currently undergoing in your perspective?
A- I have been teaching at the American University in Cairo, Egypt since 2008, so I have been living in the Middle East for almost 10 years now, mainly in Egypt, but I have travelled to the Kurdish region of Iraq and also to Turkey many times. On the one hand, I am worried about the situation in Egypt, there are presidential elections coming up in March and many people have been disqualified who wanted to run against president Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, including three members of the Egyptian military, also including Ahmed Shafiq and Sami Hafez Anan. They are both high ranking generals who either have been arrested or suddenly changed their mind and dropped out of the race. Therefore, the problem in Egypt is that President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi is not going to allow a free and fair election to take place. So that is one of the problems in this region. Another problem of course is the Turkish intervention in Afrin, which has led to tensions between the US and Turkey over the Kurds in northern Syria and the Syrian Democratic Forces. So these developments in these two countries demonstrate the authoritarian tendencies of both RecepTayyipErdoğan and Sisi, although Sisi comes from the military establishment, unlike RecepTayyipErdoğan, but both exhibit authoritarian tendencies.
Q- As you know, and as you have pointed out there is divergent opinion between US and Turkey with regard to the situation in northern Syria, so do you believe that the relations between these two countries are on the collision course, have the recent developments driven a wedge between these two NATO members?
A- I think there are quite serious tensions between Turkey and the USA regarding what is happening in Syria. The Turkish intervention began on January 20, over a month ago.Within a few days of the intervention beginning there was a phone call between RecepTayyipErdoğan and Donald Trump. President Trump tried to warn Erdoğan about the intervention, especially taking into account that there are American troops in the Manbij. As you know Erdoğan asked the US to leave Manbij, so this is a very serious issue. US and Turkish troops have never been in combat before against each other, and both are NATO allies, so as I have said before,the US and Turkey both have an interest to resolve this crisis, and I hope they do, because it is not in the US interest and certainly not in Turkey’s interest, it might be in Russia’s interest or Iran’s interest. Therefore I hope Erdoğan and Trump will reach some kind of agreement to de-escalate the situation.
Q- With regard to the relations between US and the Kurds in Syria, previously some US officials described these relations as tactical, transactional and temporary, but right now it seems like the US intends to stay longer in the Kurdish area in northern Syria, even after defeating ISIS, so how do you analyze this development?
A- I think the US has said that they expect to stay in Syria for two years, and possibly longer. There are now around two thousand American troops in northern Syria, so it seems that the US does not intend to leave quickly, and I think the US is relying on the Syrian Democratic Forces in holding territories, which we don’t want to be retaken by the Islamic State. Therefore the US works with the Syrian Democratic Forces, which include both Kurds and Arabs, and it is crucial for stabilizing the region and to ensure that the Islamic State does not return. And whether it is tactical or transactional, I would say that of course there is a tactical interest in defeating the Islamic State, but I don’t think that the US has any other alternative other than to work with people on the ground to hold these territories. Unless a better alternative emerges,which is unlikely, I think the US will continue to rely on the Syrian Democratic Forces. And I think Erdoğan will have to accept that; frankly, he has to accept that the US and Syrian Democratic Forcesare cooperating with each other. He might not like it, but I don’t think the US will change its policy in this regard.
Q- Also with regard to the American presence in northern Syria, recently Secretary Tillerson stated that one of the US goals in staying in Syria is to roll back Iranian influence in that country, in your perspective to what extent is this an achievable goal?
A- The US has long said that it sees troubling Iranian influence not just in Syria, but also in Lebanon and Iraq, so this is the continuation of a broader US policy. This was the case under the Obama administration, but now under Trump’s administration it has become more aggressive. But the number of US troops in Syria -2000 troops- is not enough to do more than to hold some territories in the north and the east of Syria, accordingly I don’t think that they will make any ambitious attempt now, but of course this is the stated policy of the US to prevent the expansion of Iranian influence in Syria.
Q- As an expert on the conflict resolution and peace-building don’t you think that any military victory against ISIS will be fragile and short-lived if not accompanied by stabilization efforts and political settlement?
A- I think stabilization and a political settlement are definitely needed. I think one of the US interests is for refugees to be able to return to Syria, this would mean allowing many Syrian refugees that live in Egypt or Turkey or Lebanon to return back to Syria, and that will not happen if the required facilities are not in place. I visited many IDP and refugee camps and many of them were living in very terrible conditions. Some women who fled or escaped from Mosul or from ISIS held territories who are now living in IDP and refugee campsare still being subjected to sexual harassment or even assault by some of the men who guard the camp. This is a tragic situation, that women or children survived the Islamic State are stillbeing subjected to violence in the camps where they live. They should be protected, because they are a vulnerable population. But again, these refugee and IDP camps aresupposed to be temporary arrangements, because a condition has to be created that will allow them to be able to return to their home.
Q- In one of your answers you have mentioned the authoritarian tendencies in both Egypt and Turkey, to what extent are these serious and worrisome developments?
A- I will first talk about Egypt and then Turkey. I lived in Egypt through the whole period before, during, and after the revolution, and in 2011, 2012, and 2013 there were genuine impulses for a democratic transition. But thosedynamics that were leading the country to some kind of democratic transition were halted or reversed. Now, Sisi is more repressive than Mubarak, and the situation is worse under Sisi than it was under Mubarak, in terms of the number of people that have been put in jail or tortured, the situation of political prisoners is much worse than it was under Mubarak. Under Sisilaws have been passed concerning NGOs, non-governmental organizations and non-profit organizations, which really almost criminalize normal NGO activities. And also in Egypt there is a conflict with the Islamic State branch in Sinai: WilayatSinai. Unfortunately Egypt doesn’t cooperate –to the extent the US would like- with other actors to help them deal with this problem, and it is extremely difficult to get to North Sinai, so it is really almost impossible for journalists, analysts or reporters to access North Sinai to report about what is happening there. It is some kind of black box. This is unlike Iraqi Kurdistan where it is possible to visit Mosul or the areas around Mosul from Erbil. I think this is very important that the Kurdistan Regional Government allowed access to Mosul and areas around the front lines to report about what is really happening. But this is not possible in Egypt; you cannot get to North Sinai, so I can say that there is a greater degree of freedom of the press in Kurdistan than Egypt, and there is a greater degree of freedom for NGOs to operate in Iraqi Kurdistan than Egypt, at least this was my impression during multiple visits to the KRG, including my last visit over the summer. There are NGOs in Erbil and Sulaimanya and Dohuk that are allowed to operate and to receive funding from the outside donors, from outside the country, while in Egypt all this is being restricted. So I wish Egypt would learn from the experience of liberating Mosul, because Iraqi Kurdistan allowed journalists to do their work and allowed NGOs to operate, and this level of freedom of press and freedom of civil society in Iraqi Kurdistan is something Egypt should learn from. Both Egyptian and foreign journalists should be allowed access to North Sinai in order to report about what is happening. If Egypt wants to solve its own problems with jihadists in the Sinai, they could learn a lot from the liberation of Mosul. And as far as Turkey is concerned, I think we have to look at what Erdoğan is doing on the Syrian side of the border- the intervention in Afrin-and what he is doing on the Turkish side of the border, because they are connected. There are many HDP members in prison and many academics are in prison; a number of academics have lost their jobs. There is a real crackdown on the Kurdish minority but also on academics, and on journalists, this has happened in a very dramatic way in the past couple of years. So I hope that there will be a way to reverse this worrying trend, because I think this will be bad for Turkey in the long term. It will be bad for the next generation of students if their teachers and professors are not allowed to expresses their opinions or peaceful criticism.
Q- Our last question is about your expectation for the future of this region in terms of best case and worst case scenarios?
A- Of course it is hard to predict the future. As you know there are presidential elections in Egypt in March and also upcoming presidential elections in Turkey. Perhaps this repression –both in Turkey and Egypt- will decrease after the elections, when Erdoğanand Sisiwill presumably feel more secure in their positions, and maybe theywill allow a greater degree of freedom of the press and freedom of expression. So this would be an optimistic scenario thatafter the elections things will get better becauseErdoğanand Sisiwill see himself more secure in his position. Of course there is also the pessimistic scenario, which is that if Erdoğan and Sisi get away with these kinds of repressive policies, they will simply continue this trajectory. I personally wish that the US and the European Union and others would play a more constructive role in this regard. Because what Trump said particularly about Sisi is totally unacceptable. Trump described him as “fantastic guy”, while Sisi is the one who should be held accountable for the Rabaa massacre, and who is overseeing the strangulation of civil society in Egypt. Of course the US has to work with Sisi-because he is the elected president of Egypt- but that doesn’t mean we have to praise him.