Unpacking America's Middle East policy
https://arab.news/6nkfz
US foreign policy in the Middle East appears to be no longer guided by fixed strategies or clear goals. While the current administration has contributed significantly to this disarray, the bedlam was arguably inevitable. This situation arises when a nation prioritizes the interests of another over itself.
Consider the perplexing statements emanating from US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee. It is often impossible to discern whether he speaks on behalf of the US, Israel, Christian fundamentalists or himself. In his latest outlandish remarks, Huckabee last week offered a unique interpretation of old ideas advanced by Israel's most extremist elements.
'Muslim countries have 644 times the amount of land … controlled by Israel,' Huckabee said. 'If there is such a desire for the Palestinian state,' he added, 'there would be someone who would say 'we'd like to host it, we'd like to create it.'' This diatribe followed Huckabee's suggestion early this month that Palestinians relocate to France, reacting to Paris' intention to recognize a Palestinian state.
Such defensiveness is neither diplomatic nor indicative of a country with a clear and articulate foreign policy agenda. If anything, it mirrors Israel's own defensive stance toward anyone who dares criticize its military occupation, apartheid or genocide in Palestine.
Traditionally, US foreign policy has always tilted in favor of Israel, a historical balancing act between US and Israeli interests
Dr. Ramzy Baroud
Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz is a master of political defensiveness. Overwhelmed by growing pro-Palestine sentiment around the world, Katz, hardly a seasoned diplomat, retorted with equally vindictive language. After Ireland, Spain and others indicated a willingness to recognize a Palestinian state and criticized Israeli actions in Gaza, Katz said that these countries 'are legally obligated to allow any Gaza resident to enter their territories.'
To an extent, the shift in Israeli foreign policy discourse is understandable. Before the war, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu devoted much of his time to celebrating Israel's increasing integration into global affairs, particularly its supposed embrace by the Global South. Now, the tables have turned. Israel is essentially a pariah state. Its leaders, including Netanyahu himself, are either wanted by the International Criminal Court, officially sanctioned or under investigation for war crimes.
But why does Huckabee exhibit the same degree of defensiveness, attacking other world governments on behalf of Israel? The story becomes even more bizarre. When questioned about Huckabee's theories regarding a Palestinian state, a US State Department spokeswoman, Tammy Bruce, told reporters: 'I think he certainly speaks for himself.'
Bruce's remark raises further questions. Why is the US ambassador to Israel 'speaking for himself' and not his own country? And why is he conveying Israel's political sentiments? More urgently, what exactly is American policy and where does the president stand, not only on Palestinian statehood but also on the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza?
Delving deeper into this would likely yield only confusion and contradictions, some of which are evident in Huckabee's own recent political statements. For example, he contended in a May 10 interview that 'the United States isn't required to get permission from Israel to make some type of arrangement that would get the Houthis from firing on our ships.'
It is obvious that US foreign policy in the Middle East is no longer operating based on a clear, complex and dynamic strategy
Dr. Ramzy Baroud
Coupled with the news that the US was involved in indirect talks with the Palestinian group Hamas, some analysts concluded that the US was steering its policies away from the Israeli agenda, which is heavily promoted by the pro-Israel lobby in the US.
Yet, Huckabee soon reverted to his peculiar brand of politics, which, more strangely, is publicly disavowed by the White House.
Traditionally, US foreign policy has always tilted in favor of Israel, a historical balancing act between US and Israeli interests. The complete shift toward Israel began taking shape during George W. Bush's presidency, thanks to Israel's ability to insert itself as a critical player in the US' so-called war on terror.
Despite Barack Obama's generosity toward Israel, he did, at least toward the end of his second term, attempt to return to the old balancing act. This culminated in the largely symbolic gesture of abstaining from a UN Security Council vote condemning Israel's illegal settlements.
The pro-Israel agenda returned with a vengeance during Trump's first term. The difference between Trump's first administration and the current one is that the former was largely coherent. This administration is as confused as it is confusing. It neither subscribes to the fraudulent pro-Israel balancing act of the Democrats nor is it committed to a singular agenda that unifies all its foreign policy actors.
It is obvious that US foreign policy in the Middle East is no longer operating based on a clear, complex and dynamic strategy that integrates military, economic and geostrategic interests. This has been exploited by figures like Netanyahu to prolong the chaos in the region and to further push his extremist settler-colonial agenda.
However, this chaotic state could also present an opportunity for those striving for a just, peaceful and stable Middle East. Indeed, America's contradictions should compel regional and international players to activate a multilateral approach to conflict resolution that prioritizes the interests of the occupied and subjugated Palestinians, in accordance with international law.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
Netanyahu using Iran war to stay in power ‘forever': former US president Clinton
DUBAI: Former US president Bill Clinton said Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been wanting to fight Iran for a longtime because that way he can stay in the office forever. 'Netanyahu has long wanted to fight Iran because that way he can stay in office forever and ever. I mean, he's been there most of the last 20 years,' the former president said during an appearance on 'The Daily Show'. Clinton said he called on US President Donald Trump to 'defuse' the current conflict between Israel and Iran, and end the 'outright constant killing of civilians.' 'But I think we should be trying to defuse it, and I hope President Trump will do that.' The former president said he does not think either Netanyahu or Trump want to trigger a full-scale regional disaster. He also emphasized the importance of the US protecting its allies in the region, while simultaneously advocating for restraint. 'We have to convince our friends in the Middle East that we'll stand with them and try to protect them,' he stated. 'But choosing undeclared wars in which the primary victims are civilians, who are not politically involved, one way or the other, who just want to live decent lives, is not a very good solution.' The US by far has stayed out of direct action in the conflict between Iran and Israel. But it has helped Israel shoot down missiles from Tehran and has supplied it with military equipment.
Al Arabiya
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
South Korea's chief trade negotiator plans US visit June 22-27
South Korea's trade minister Yeo Han-koo will visit the United States from June 22 to 27, the trade ministry said on Saturday. The visit will include discussions with US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and the third round of bilateral technical discussions, a ministry official told Reuters. Further details about the meetings were not disclosed. 'Since a South Korea-US summit has yet to take place and key ministers have not been appointed under the new administration, negotiations are likely to focus on areas that the trade ministry can manage - excluding major issues such as defense cost - sharing and exchange rates,' Heo Yoon, an economics professor at Sogang University, said. 'Given these circumstances, reaching a comprehensive agreement on key negotiation frameworks and agendas is expected to be challenging.' South Korea, which is currently facing a 10 percent blanket tariff and a 25 percent country-specific duty temporarily paused for 90 days, agreed with the US during initial trade negotiations in late April to craft a trade deal reducing tariffs by July 8. Asia's fourth-largest economy unexpectedly contracted in the first quarter amid US President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs and domestic political unrest following former President Yoon Suk Yeol's martial law decree in December.
Al Arabiya
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
Battle of Bunker Hill: US commemorates 250th anniversary of ‘great American battle'
As the US marks the 250th anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, it might take a moment — or more — to remember why. Start with the very name. 'There's something percussive about it: Battle of Bunker Hill,' says prize-winning historian Nathaniel Philbrick, whose 'Bunker Hill: A City, A Siege, A Revolution' was published in 2013. 'What actually happened probably gets hazy for people outside of the Boston area, but it's part of our collective memory and imagination.' 'Few 'ordinary' Americans could tell you that Freeman's Farm, or Germantown, or Guilford Court House were battles,' says Paul Lockhart, a professor of history at Wright University and author of a Bunker Hill book, 'The Whites of Their Eyes,' which came out in 2011. 'But they can say that Gettysburg, D-Day, and Bunker Hill were battles.' Bunker Hill, Lockhart adds, 'is the great American battle, if there is such a thing.' Much of the world looks to the Battles of Lexington and Concord, fought in Massachusetts on April 19, 1775, as the start of the American Revolution. But Philbrick, Lockhart and others cite Bunker Hill and June 17 as the real beginning, the first time British and rebel forces faced off in sustained conflict over a specific piece of territory. Bunker Hill was an early showcase for two long-running themes in American history — improvisation and how an inspired band of militias could hold their own against an army of professionals. 'It was a horrific bloodletting, and provided the British high command with proof that the Americans were going to be a lot more difficult to subdue than had been hoped,' says the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Rick Atkinson, whose second volume of a planned trilogy on the Revolution, 'The Fate of the Day,' was published in April. The battle was born in part out of error; rebels were seeking to hold off a possible British attack by fortifying Bunker Hill, a 110-foot-high (34-meter-high) peak in Charlestown across the Charles River from British-occupied Boston. But for reasons still unclear, they instead armed a smaller and more vulnerable ridge known as Breed's Hill, 'within cannon shot of Boston,' Philbrick says. 'The British felt they had no choice but to attack and seize the American fort.' Abigail Adams, wife of future President John Adams, and son John Quincy Adams, also a future president, were among thousands in the Boston area who looked on from rooftops, steeples and trees as the two sides fought with primal rage. A British officer would write home about the 'shocking carnage' left behind, a sight 'that never will be erased out of my mind 'till the day of my death.' The rebels were often undisciplined and disorganized and they were running out of gunpowder. The battle ended with them in retreat, but not before the British had lost more than 200 soldiers and sustained more than 1,000 casualties, compared to some 450 colonial casualties and the destruction of hundreds of homes, businesses and other buildings in Charlestown. Bunker Hill would become characteristic of so much of the Revolutionary War: a technical defeat that was a victory because the British needed to win decisively and the rebels needed only not to lose decisively. 'Nobody now entertains a doubt but that we are able to cope with the whole force of Great Britain, if we are but willing to exert ourselves,' Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend in early July. 'As our enemies have found we can reason like men, now let us show them we can fight like men also.'
