The great disconnect: Unpacking America's chaotic Middle East policy
Ultra-Orthodox Jewish men inspect the damage at the site of an Iranian missile strike in Bnei Brak, east of Tel Aviv, on June 16, 2025. Iran unleashed a barrage of missile strikes on Israeli cities early on June 16, after Israel struck military targets deep inside Iran, with both sides threatening further devastation.
Ramzy Baroud
US foreign policy in the Middle East appears to be adrift, no longer guided by fixed strategies or clear goals. Instead, a chaotic process, akin to political decentralization, is underway. While the Trump administration contributed significantly to this disarray, the ensuing bedlam was arguably inevitable. This situation arises when a nation prioritizes the interests of another over its own.
Consider the perplexing statements emanating from the US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee. It is often impossible to discern whether he speaks on behalf of the United States, Israel, Christian fundamentalists or himself. In his latest outlandish remarks, Huckabee offered a unique interpretation of old ideas advanced by Israel's most extremist elements.
'Muslim countries have 644 times the amount of land that is controlled by Israel,' Huckabee told the BBC. '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 that Palestinians relocate to France, reacting to an official French announcement of its 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 defensive stance towards anyone who dares criticize its military occupation, apartheid or genocide in Palestine.
Israel's Foreign Minister, Israel Katz, is a master of political defensiveness. Overwhelmed by growing pro-Palestine sentiment among world governments, Katz, hardly a seasoned diplomat, retorted with equally vindictive language. When Ireland, Spain and others indicated a willingness to recognize a Palestinian state, Katz said that these countries 'are legally obligated to allow any Gaza resident to enter their territories'.
To an extent, the shift in Israel's foreign policy discourse is understandable. Before the war, Israeli 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 BBC theories regarding a Palestinian state, a US State Department spokeswoman, Tammy Bruce, told reporters, 'I think he certainly speaks for himself.'
Bruce's remarks raise 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', according to Bruce, 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 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.'
Coupled with 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, heavily promoted daily 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 favour of Israel, a historical balancing act between US and Israeli interests. The complete shift towards Israel began taking shape during George W. Bush's terms, 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 towards Israel, he did, at least towards 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 United Nations Security Council vote on December 23, 2016, condemning Israel's illegal settlements.
The pro-Israel agenda returned with a vengeance during Trump's first term, with David Friedman and Mike Pompeo serving as US Ambassador to Israel and Secretary of State, respectively. Friedman perfected the art of offensive language, reportedly calling members of J Street 'capos', and embodied the most fundamentalist and extremist notions adopted by the Israeli right. Pompeo was an equally ardent pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian diplomat.
The difference between Trump's first administration and the current one is that the former was largely coherent. This current administration, however, is as confused as it is confusing. It neither subscribes to the fraudulent pro-Israel balancing acts 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 but 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 push further 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, US contradictions and the absence of true leadership should compel regional and international players to activate a multilateral approach to conflict resolution that prioritizes the interests of the occupied and subjugated Palestinians, by international law.
* Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. This article was originally published at https://www.palestinechronicle.com/
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
19 minutes ago
- IOL News
Zionacity: The Audacity of Eternal Victimhood
Explore the concept of 'Zionacity'—an ideological condition that elevates one group's trauma while diminishing the suffering of others. Image: IOL Zionacity, a term forged from Zionism and audacity, names an ideological condition of extreme exceptionalism, where one group's trauma is treated as sacred and untouchable, and all others' suffering is deemed either fabricated, deserved or irrelevant. It is a disorder of moral reasoning that weaponises grief into entitlement and reframes domination as divine right. But Zionacity is not confined to the Israeli settler state. It is a global psychosis, an exported belief system that afflicts settler-colonial logic across the world. In South Africa, it takes form in the behaviour of white Afrikaans landowners who frame their historic land theft as cultural inheritance, and their continued dominance as the right of a 'Christian civilisation'. Zionacity is the theological twin of every settler project that sanctifies conquest while vilifying resistance. This ideology operates beyond the geopolitical. It is also theological and psychological. It refuses reciprocity. It replaces solidarity with siege. It renames justice as hatred and peace as submission. Zionacity insists that one people's pain entitles them to unaccountable power, and that any challenge to this logic constitutes an existential threat. It is this ideological framework that justifies the mass bombing of Gaza, the starvation of civilians, and the flattening of hospitals and schools. It is what renders the shattered bodies of Palestinian children invisible to international law and morally irrelevant to Western media. It is desensitisation, it is dehumanisation, it is doctrinal. Zionacity erases empathy. It demands silence, obedience and allegiance parceled in guilt. It teaches the world that to mourn Palestinian lives is to betray Jewish ones. That to name Israeli war crimes is to defile the memory of Jewish trauma. It thrives on the falsehood that grief is a zero-sum game. That the suffering of the colonised must defer to the sensibilities of the coloniser. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ It is also an erasure of prophetic Judaism, the Judaism of resistance, of liberation theology, of standing with the oppressed. Zionacity is not Judaism. It is the death of that moral and spiritual legacy. The radical Jewish voices who once marched against apartheid, who stood for Palestinian rights, who dared to speak the truth, are now vilified, silenced or exiled from the public square. Zionacity is symbiotic with liberalism. The two work together like seasoned partners. Zionacity drops the bombs, and liberalism edits the headlines. Zionacity razes schools, and liberalism appeals to 'complexity'. The liberal mind is incapable of asymmetry. It will not say: one side occupies, bombs and kills with impunity. It must frame everything as 'tragic', 'complicated', 'both sides'. It weeps selectively for Palestinian victims — and only when their suffering can be extracted from the wider political landscape of resistance. There are no liberal tears for the victims of NATO bombs in Libya, of Saudi airstrikes in Yemen, of Israeli proxy wars against Iran, of the economic strangulation of Venezuela, of Western-backed terror in Syria, or for the dead in Donbas under years of shelling. Russia, China, Iran, Libya, Yemen — all are filed away under 'authoritarian regimes', their populations rendered unworthy of empathy. To the liberal mind, these people are not victims, but collateral in the fight for 'democracy'. They do not grieve them. They judge them. We saw this logic in South Africa too. It is the same liberalism that asked Black South Africans to 'move on' after apartheid, without land, justice or redress. It is the same liberalism that now asks Palestinians to condemn their own resistance before they are allowed to grieve. Liberalism demands civility from the oppressed, never justice. Zionacity claims not only the moral high ground but the exclusive right to self-defence. In its worldview, only Israel may respond to violence, and even to imagined threats, with overwhelming force. Palestinians are never granted this right. Their resistance is immediately criminalised, their anguish reframed as aggression. A settler-colonial logic underwrites this asymmetry. The occupier claims the right to defend stolen land, while the dispossessed are punished for refusing to be erased. Zionacity is theological settler-colonialism. It claims that God, not law or justice, grants the right to erase a people. It reframes mass displacement as security. It makes siege into necessity. It casts those demanding dignity as terrorists and those dropping bombs as victims. Not only does it reject the notion of universal rights, it weaponises their language for exclusion. It is not coincidental that the same states funding Israel's war machine backed apartheid South Africa, invaded Iraq and support proxy wars in Africa. Zionacity is embedded in the infrastructure of global power, in diplomacy, finance, surveillance, journalism, philanthropy and cultural production. Its arrogance lies in its assumption that the narrative is fixed. That if you control language, you control memory. That if you control memory, you erase responsibility. But from under the rubble, truth rises. From exiled Jewish thinkers, resistance echoes. From global youth movements, the word Palestine is spoken with clarity and resolve. To name Zionacity is not antisemitism. It is moral courage. It is to refuse to let one trauma sanctify all future violence. It is to reject the demand that empathy be selective, conditional and censored. Zionacity is not just a doctrine. It is a global apparatus of control. But it is also brittle. Its strength lies in silence. Its weakness lies in exposure. To resist Zionacity is not simply political. It is human. It is the insistence that no people, anywhere, are chosen for impunity. And that no child's life, anywhere, is disposable. If Zionism and its audacity remain unable to recognise the full humanity of others — whether Palestinian, Iranian, Yemeni, Libyan, Russian or Chinese — then the world which it victimises with its cruel impunity will be forced to declare unfettered war against it, not just on its weapons, but on its worldview. For an ideology that refuses empathy becomes a death cult, and like all death cults, Zionism will eventually devour its own children. * Gillian Schutte is a South African writer, filmmaker and social critic. She writes on decoloniality, media and political resistance across the Global South. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
eNCA
38 minutes ago
- eNCA
Trump hints at Iran regime change
JOHANNESBURG -US president Donald Trump has hinted at a potential regime change in Iran, after attacks on three Iranian nuclear sites. Trump posted on his Truth Social platform, questioning whether the current regime, is able to "Make Iran Great Again'. His position contrasts with some his officials, who have been saying the military strike was not aimed at regime change.
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
IAEA seeks access to Iran nuclear sites to 'account for' highly enriched uranium stockpiles
A worker rides a bike in front of the reactor building of the Bushehr nuclear power plant, just outside the southern city of Bushehr, Iran. Image: File. The head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog on Monday called for its inspectors to be able to return to Iran's nuclear sites in a bid to "account for" its highly enriched uranium stockpiles. He called for a cessation of hostilities. The request follows attacks by Israel and the United States on Iran's nuclear facilities. "Iran, Israel and the Middle East need peace," Rafael Grossi, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told an emergency meeting of the organisation's board of governors in Vienna. "For that, we must take a number of steps," he said. "First of all, we must return to the negotiating table and for that allow IAEA inspectors -- the guardians on our behalf of the NPT (nuclear non-proliferation treaty) -- to go back to Iran's nuclear sites and account for the stockpiles of uranium, including, most importantly, the 400 kilogrammes enriched to 60 percent." Grossi said Tehran had sent him a letter on June 13 announcing the implementation of "special measures to protect nuclear equipment and materials". "There needs to be a cessation of hostilities for the necessary safety and security conditions to prevail so that Iran can let IAEA teams into the sites to assess the situation," he said. Over the weekend, the United States struck three Iranian nuclear sites, joining Israel's bombardments of Iran's nuclear programme. "Craters are now visible at the Fordo site, Iran's main facility for enriching uranium at 60 percent, indicating the use of ground-penetrating munitions," he said. He added that "very significant damage" is expected to have occurred for the US bombing "given the explosive payload utilised and the extreme vibration-sensitive nature of centrifuges". "At this time, no-one including the IAEA, is in a position to have fully assessed the underground damage at Fordo," he said. The US strikes came after Israel began launching large-scale attacks on Iran on June 13 targeting its missile and nuclear facilities, military leaders and security services, and residential sites. Iran's uranium enrichment has for decades caused tension, with Western powers voicing fears the drive is aimed at making an atomic bomb, a claim denied by Tehran. Israel has maintained ambiguity about its own atomic arsenal, neither officially confirming nor denying it exists, but the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute has estimated it has 90 nuclear warheads. European powers have urged Tehran to revive diplomatic efforts with the United States to find a solution in the standoff over its nuclear programme. Iran has said it can only consider diplomacy once Israel halts its bombardment of the Islamic republic. AFP
