The United States is gearing up to elect a new president, with the main options on the table seemingly the same as four years ago. Unlike the past, and in light of the emergence of a populist politician that with a vernacular language to convey his ideas and attract attentions, the Americans that were once politically passive and neutral, have recently been severely politicized and divided, turning into an intemperate society.
Several components of US diplomatic mission in the Middle East are stable and do not quickly go through immediate modifications even when presidents change after every election. The components mostly relate to basic, permanent operational priorities that flow from vital U.S. values in the region. However, even with these general constants, different U.S. tactics arise in the area pursuant to the inclinations of each White House period, especially when it comes to setting goals and formulating plans to achieve broad geopolitical ambitions.
A rising number of nations in the Middle East are looking forward to the November presidential elections in the United States. The area is now dealing with an array of interrelated disputes, and how Washington decides to participate will have a significant impact on how things turn out. Apart from only being held at this particular time, November elections are extremely important since it is now clear, considering the results of polls which give a better chance of winning to former president Donald Trump than Joe Biden, with his disputed foreign policy conduct. As such, the remaining months until November will be the scene of the competition between two contenders whose four-year foreign policy exhibits span two distinct eras for the Middle Eastern governments and nations.
It is evident how drastically different the two candidates’ responses are to the challenges facing the Middle East. Over the course of their specific commands, they have shown differences in approach to a wide range of locale-specific issues. These include humanitarian issues, nuclear proliferation, regional partnerships, the two-state solution and the urgent Gaza conflict, with the latter being particularly relevant currently. As a consequence, based on the results of the forthcoming elections in the United States, conducting a detailed study of the probable prospects of Washington’s engagement within the Middle East in each scenario may shed light at the future of developments in the region.
The outstanding assistance that Washington provides for Israel on military and intelligence sectors and a supplemented economic and media campaign offered Israel more potent and confidence in its war in Gaza. Biden’s conduct in the seven-month process following the outbreak of war in Gaza has been criticized by minority groups, students and various other social groups as a neutral and ineffective policy in time of heightened tensions and violence in the region.
Various observers have predicted that the incumbent president may suffer an election loss as a result of the Arab societies’ overwhelming dissatisfaction with the White House’s treatment of the continuing surge of violence in Palestinian lands, according to reports from American missions in the area.
Examining the subtleties in the Biden office’s ties with the Israeli establishment is crucial in highlighting the distinctions between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Though Biden has consistently and strategically supported Israel as a legal and independent state, there has been a clear strain in his interactions with Tel Aviv, especially following the restoration of Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister. The White House under the command of Biden has stuck to positions that Israeli prime minister is adamantly against, including the endorsement of the creation of an independent Palestinian entity within the bounds of 1967 and calling for an end to the development of illegitimate settlements in the West Bank.
The US government has also voiced concerns regarding Israel’s post-conflict strategies for the Gaza Strip, especially those that involve proposals for annexation or the establishment of a protected region. The White House under Trump, on the other hand, took a very different approach to regional affairs pertaining to the Middle East and Israel. Trump rejected the notion of going back to the 1967 lines while controversially embracing Jerusalem the Israeli capital. His views on West Bank settlements were against the international requirements leading to the acceleration of construction operations during his term. The Palestinian Authority’s legitimacy over the West Bank was not acknowledged in former government’s Abraham Accords agenda which instead called for the PA command over other non-significant regions of the Occupied lands.
The suspension of funds to the PA, a year before Trump’s removing from office, was part of a plan to undermine the entity’s position and make full statehood negotiations in officially recognized Palestinian regions irrelevant. According to assessments, Trump’s success in the next elections would be advantageous for the far-right extremists in Israel, especially the Likud Party. Even while Trump has publicly criticized Netanyahu, he contributes to the Israeli hostility toward any move to revitalize the Palestinian Authority, backs the settlement growth, and opposes to any setback by Israel during peace talks. In terms of the ongoing war, the present office’s efforts to bolster and rejuvenate the PA in Gaza after 19 years might potentially de-stress far-rights faction if Trump show victorious in the election.
In contrast to his predecessor, Biden has adopted a more aggressive approach when interacting with Riyadh and his de-facto ruler. Humanitarian issues were the initial pretext of tension in their affairs, particularly in the wake of the murder of Washington Post author and contributor. Conflicts over choices to reduce oil output also contributed to the continued friction, with Riyadh and Moscow being squeezed under the structure of the OPEC+ association. On the other hand, the kingdom remembers that Trump had a positive attitude toward Saudi Arabia from his initial trip to the Riyadh following takeover of power as US president. With a realistic viewpoint that pursued profitable economic partnerships for his nation, former US administration was open to the kingdom’s de-prioritizing humanitarian issues in its policy agenda. Similar to what happened under Trump’s command, other Arab states of the region may be able to find ways to protect their local and international status without putting their interests at risk due to US-Saudi rapprochement.
A Trump victory is expected to preserve a strict stance, similar to his previous conduct, on Iran and nuclear program, which was characterized by the termination of the JCPOA, nuclear agreement with Iran, and restoration of harshest sanctions on Tehran. The incumbent president, on the other hand, is still trying to adopt a more accommodative posture, especially in light of settlings to swap detainees and releasing Iranian cash that were being held in South Korea and elsewhere. Amidst escalating conflicts resulting from the Gaza crisis, that initially blazed the fire of tensions between Iranian proxies and US troops in Iraq, the United States and Iran are proceeding with their constructive and covert discussions on key regional and trans-regional issues.
The world is leading the way from a superpower model to a novel power-sharing structure based on economic, political, and military potencies of the nations. Nevertheless, the United States, with the biggest economy and military sector, still has its own footprint on the developments in key regions. Nations in the Middle East have an eye on the electoral developments of the United States, while the other eye is focused on the region’s escalating tensions and conflicts.
| The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Al-Sarira. |
