The name of Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former U.S. national security advisor, is very familiar to many who have followed the developments in the U.S. foreign policy over the last decade. This famous American strategist died this year at the age of 89. Brzezinski is referred to as the "creator of al-Qaeda": who, by using Saudi Arabia's capacity, sowed al-Qaeda's seed through his anti-communist tendencies during the bipolar system and in opposition to the Kremlin Palace.

 Of course, after the collapse of the bipolar system and the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was no apparent reason for the United States to maintain al-Qaeda. But the leaders of both the Democratic and Republican parties took the tactic of "preserving al-Qaeda" in pursuit of their "interventionist strategy" in Afghanistan.After 2000, and when George W. Bush came to power, the tactic of "preserving al-Qaeda" turned to the tactic of "destruction of al-Qaeda".

 George W. Bush, along with Twelve American Neoconservative Council, with the presence of people like Irving Kristol, Richard Pearl, and Paul Wolfowitz believed that realizing the strategy of "constant intervention in Afghanistan and the Indian subcontinent" is no longer possible with the tactic of "preserving al-Qaeda".

In 2013, the United States used the tactic of "Creating ISIS" as a means to implement the middle term Strategy of "Maintaining the West Asian Security Crisis", and the major strategy of "Constant Interference in the Muslim World." In the equation defined by Barack Obama, the "rise and fall of ISIL", like "the rise and fall of al-Qaeda", was supposed to be a variable depending on the will of the American authorities. Even the expiry date of ISIS was determined in this equation.
 People like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, and Susan Rice (former U.S. national security advisor) all agreed that long-term management of the ISIS would not be possible due to this group's "insurgence capabilities", and it's necessary to destroy this group after the collapse of the Syrian government and Iraq (according to what the U.S. officials imagined).Obama thought it would happen in 2014. He intended to reduce the focus of ISIS's force on the Syrian border, by a similar action to what George W. Bush did between 2001 and 2003 in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 Obama urged the Saudis to address the Syria and Iraq internal affairs administration on behalf of Washington. In other words, in 2013, the United States began to set a puzzle which its pieces were ISIS, Arab reactionary states, the Zionist regime, and the White House's European allies. The Obama administration, with a special obsession, was putting together the pieces of this puzzle alongside each other. However, the White House never imagined the courageous entry of the "axis of resistance" to the battle scene in Syria and Iraq.
Though Donald Trump has started with a critical approach towards the U.S. foreign policy in the West Asia region in 2016, he also sought to complete the puzzle that Obama could not finish. We are now in 2017. The cry of the victory of the Syrian and Iraqi people against ISIS has led to the astonishment of American authorities and strategists.  Trump is now faced with a messy and confusing puzzle that its solving is more difficult than ever. Most importantly, the shock caused by the defeat of ISIS in Syria and Iraq has confused the United States President about his ultimate goal of completing the puzzle.
In March 2017, when the ISIS was about to be destroyed due to numerous defeats in Iraq and Syria, the New York Times, in a controversial report, acknowledged that Donald Trump hadn't fundamentally any plans for ISIS or how to deal with it. However, during the U.S. presidential campaigns in 2016, Trump emphasized his plans to fight against ISIS.
 The American hesitation in arming the Kurds against ISIS in Syria has also come from here. Washington didn't exactly know where to put the piece named ISIS, or worse, how to place it in this puzzle! The recent move by the United States to remove hundreds of ISIS forces from the city of Raqqa, along with their families, is also due to Washington's confusion over the terrorist and takfirist groups.
Washington, on the one hand, knows very well that the "ISIS destroyed by the resistance" is fundamentally different from "ISIS driven by the West." On the other hand, Donald Trump, like his former counterpart Barack Obama, believes that ISIS birth and death place should be in West Asia (and not America or the European countries).
 As a result, playing the role of the terrorist's savior, he has been pushing for ISIS's transition from Raqqa, aiming to prevent them from scattering in other parts of the world, including European and the United States. However, as the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran had already foreseen, the evil of the terrorist and takfiri groups would eventually return to their owners and creators. 
Eventually, the president of the United States is planning to rebuild a jumbled puzzle, the puzzle that had been set up in 2013 with a defined purpose and prospect, and with a clear American-Zionist approach. As mentioned, Trump is now heavily worried about the insurgence capability of ISIS's remains in confrontation with the United States and its European partners.
 On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of U.S. partners from 2013 onwards (regional and international supporters of the ISIS) are all in the shock of ISIS destruction in Syria and Iraq. Hence, the United States will have a very difficult path to re-set its puzzle in West Asia (relying on a constant interventionist strategy in the region).