The delusions of Biden's Middle East doctrine

US President Joe Biden (Reuters)

Biden's doctrine or doctrine for the Middle East is an expanded plan that was approved - according to Thomas Friedman, columnist for the New York Times - at the highest level of the American administration.

To rearrange the Middle East, but its purpose - in my estimation - is to absorb the strategic consequences imposed by the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation.

In order to ensure the continuation of the highest interests of the United States and its allies in the region, which are: the continued flow of energy and the security of Israel.

In addition to their superiority over the Chinese in the region, they continue to assert their ability to ensure security there.

The "Al-Aqsa Flood" proved that China is on the sidelines with regard to the dynamics of the Palestinian issue.

Biden's doctrine is based on three pillars:

• The American-Saudi-Israeli defense alliance, with the normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and the Zionist entity.

• Striving to establish a Palestinian state.

• The hot confrontation with Iran and its allies in the region.

Apparently, the American logic behind this doctrine is the idea of ​​overlapping squares: the key to ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the “two-state solution” - that is, a Palestinian state next to Israel - and the key to the two-state solution is the Saudi normalization agreement, and the key to Saudi normalization is ending... The war in Gaza, and the key to ending the war in Gaza is the hostage agreement.

But these overlapping squares can be looked at in a different way: The calls for establishing a Palestinian state - even though the two-state solution was never a solution - are a basic requirement for normalization with the rest of the countries of the region, led by Saudi Arabia, and it is necessary - regardless of its realistic potential - to absorb Arab popular discontent. From the United States and Israel.

This normalization would change the perception that was confirmed with the “Al-Aqsa Flood” that Israel - and not Iran - represents the priority threat to the security of the region, as Arab public opinion polls showed.

There is a realization in Western political thinking and in some Arab countries that if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is resolved, Tehran will be weakened, and the Middle East will stabilize.

“The key to the security of Israel and the region is dealing with Iran,” said William Burns, Director of the CIA, in his recently published article in Foreign Affairs.

Iran is now closer to being able to produce a nuclear weapon than before, and is actively influencing regional affairs through its proxies such as Hezbollah and the Houthis in the so-called “Axis of Resistance.”

Five strategic results

The failure of the strategy of what was called the “Deal of the Century” and its living embodiment, the “Abraham” Accords, which ignored the legitimate demands of the Palestinian people.

These agreements were based on the principle of peace in exchange for peace.

The goal is now to move toward a Palestinian state alongside efforts to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia and other Arab and Islamic countries.

That is, the old formula, which is land for peace, or at the very least finding a credible path to establishing a state for the Palestinians before normalizing relations with Israel or participating in the reconstruction of Gaza.

The efforts made by some countries to modernize their societies and economies are at risk in the absence of a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the Palestinian issue has become part of the national interests of Arab governments, and not an Arab or Islamic issue, contrary to popular perception in the region.

In addition to the above, the diplomatic breakthroughs launched before October 7 to resolve conflicts and tensions between the countries of the region cannot bring stability there without addressing the Palestinian issue.

Despite its high popularity costs;

The logic of normalization still exists.

Saudi efforts to keep the door open to normalization make clear that the implicit deal for the Gulf states remains attractive: normalization with Israel in exchange for better relations and more influence with the United States, allowing it to obtain strong security commitments and improved access to American technology and defense systems.

Governments wishing to continue the path of normalization now must balance two matters: First: moving forward, but according to specific commitments and a timetable for establishing the state, and not vague promises, as was before.

Second: Understanding and managing the overwhelming feeling of popular anger at the Israeli aggression, and the role that the United States plays in supporting Israel.

Netanyahu's policy of prioritizing the Iranian threat to Israel and the region, actively working against the US policy on the nuclear issue, and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action initiated by the Obama administration has also failed.

Iran is now closer to being able to produce a nuclear weapon than before, and is actively influencing regional affairs through its proxies such as Hezbollah and the Houthis in the so-called “Axis of Resistance.”

Delusions of the Biden Middle East doctrine

However, these are illusions belied by the facts, and are mere speculations made by Friedman, for several reasons, the most prominent of which are:

• A clear Israeli rejection of the establishment of a Palestinian state.

  Of course, we do not wonder about Jerusalem or the Christian and Islamic sanctities therein, nor about the nature of the Palestinian state.

  Whether they are demilitarized, sovereign, or merely autonomous entities under Israeli hegemony.

One of the results of the “Al-Aqsa Flood” was that Saudi Arabia merged its relationship with the Zionist entity by establishing the Palestinian state, which I do not think will be achieved in the short or medium term.

It is not possible to provide a reliable negotiating process that ends with the establishment of the desired Palestinian state, for reasons related to the fact that the participating and guarantor parties are not prepared to deal with such a file.

The Palestinian Authority needs reform, and who will rule Israel after the war has not yet been determined. This year is the year of the American elections, and we do not know what God is talking about in the seat of the American presidency.

Will Biden continue or will Trump come, or will both be excluded for health reasons for the former and legal reasons for the latter, and will the competition be between other personalities?

If the opportunity comes - and I do not think it will come according to the current data - we may have to wait until a new Israeli government is formed, an improved Palestinian Authority, and a second term for Biden, and we are not talking about reconstruction or the status of Hamas and the resistance.

• One of the pillars of Biden's doctrine is the heated confrontation with Iran, which is not the subject of agreement between the countries of the region.

  
  

  The United States was unable to form a regional coalition to confront Houthi attacks in the Red Sea.

  With the "Al-Aqsa Flood", the US policy - so far - in dealing with Iran has been based on two pillars: cooperation with it to not expand the circle of war, in addition to deterring its agents.

  If American soldiers are killed;

  Direct military engagement with them takes place in a targeted manner without expanding the scope of war, which has proven effective so far.

• The defense treaty between the United States and Saudi Arabia requires ratification by a two-thirds majority in the Senate.

  This is with Congress struggling to agree on anything, especially Biden's request for more money to aid Ukraine, Israel and others.

If an agreement is reached this year, it should enjoy bipartisan support, even if some left-wing Democrats and isolationist Republicans oppose it.

If Trump wins a second term, Democrats will likely vote en masse against the defense treaty.

Conclusion:

“The Middle East is where big American ideas will die,” warned Aaron David Miller, a veteran Middle East peace negotiator.

The experience of three decades of history that is as old as Oslo teaches us that: “The major American investment in building a Palestinian state is likely to end in failure, as have happened with previous efforts to do the same,” concluded Foreign Policy columnist Stephen Cook. .

finally;

- And this is the most important thing in my opinion -: No one can guess whether it is possible to take meaningful steps in light of Israel’s aggressive policies and the political ambitions of the hard-line Zionist right, as embodied in this battle by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.