Unpacking America's Middle East policy

Arab News

6 hours ago

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.