Abraham Accords - Will Biden Follow Obama on Middle East?
By Mohamed Salah Ahmed
December
03, 2020
Despite
U.S. President Donald Trump's defiance in rejecting the election results and
refusal to concede, all facts point to the end of an era – an era embedded with
lies, populist and nationalistic rhetoric, anti-immigration and anti-immigrant
tirades and conspiracy theories, and guided by irrational and unreasonable
policies domestically and internationally.
(L to R) Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, U.S. President Donald Trump, Bahrain's Foreign
Minister Khalid bin Ahmed al-Khalifa and United Arab Emirates' Foreign Minister
Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahyan react on the Blue Room Balcony after signing the
Abraham Accords during a ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House in
Washington, D.C., U.S., Sept. 15, 2020. (AP Photo)
-----
Trump’s
rise to power and term in office redefined American hegemony and compelled
others to reassess and reconsider their reliance on the United States.
Despite the
severe national social and political hitches the Trump administration caused,
which will have future implications, his most immense impairment at the
international level has been undermining the importance and role of
international organizations.
Since the
day he came down the gilded escalator in 2015 to launch his political campaign,
Trump downplayed the significance and the role of the international
organizations and system.
And after
he defied all expectations and shocked the world by beating Hillary Clinton in
2016, Trump continued to undermine the significance of collaboration and the
critical role international organizations play to keep the international system
operational.
In doing
so, he pulled his country out of the Paris climate accord, withdrew from the
Iran nuclear deal, pulled America out of UNESCO, destabilized NATO, terminated
the relationship with the World Health Organization (WHO) at the worst time and
challenged the core responsibilities of the United Nations.
However,
his preference for isolation over cooperation instigated the notion that
international organizations do not matter to America. And if the rest of the
world wants the global system to survive, it is up to them to find ways to make
the international organizations function without the U.S.
But in
reality, that was a naive and irrational choice. Joseph Nye, a well-known
political scientist and the co-founder of the international relations theory of
neoliberalism, argued in a post-election piece that Trump may have targeted
international organizations, but the U.S. still needs them to maintain global
hegemony. And the only way is by emphasizing worldwide cooperation and
employing foreign policy free from resentment and anger.
Trump tried
to isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world by reciting his “America
first" policy, and the Middle East was not an exception.
Throughout
Trump's term, the Trump administration’s regional efforts were not helpful;
rather they were disparaging. His son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner was
assigned to frame and execute America's foreign policy toward the Middle East,
and the outcome was not encouraging.
Most of the
administration's policy in the region was strategically incoherent and
rambling. Actions such as bombing Syria and considering the assassination of
its leader, getting close to a military confrontation with Iran, being an
accomplice in the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, assassinating
Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani in a foreign country, supporting the Qatar
blockade and finally coming up with the Trump-Kushner peace agreements days
before the election do not show coherence or consistency. Rather they show an
unpredictable, unstable and discursive foreign policy.
One of the
critical issues at which the Trump administration, like its predecessors,
failed miserably was solving the problem of Palestine and Israel.
Trump even
explicitly moved the U.S embassy to Jerusalem, which complicated the region's
situation and stamped out expectations of solving the Palestine-Israel conflict.
Not only
that, but the U.S. administration also approved the continuation of the illegal
settlements in the occupied West Bank. Then, suddenly in the last months of his
term, at the time of elections, Trump comes up with what his camp has called
the Deal of the Century, which basically was a normalization deal between
several Arab states in the Middle East and Israel – the Abraham Accords.
The Mysterious Agreement
As the
masterminds of the accord claimed, the Abraham Accords' primary incentive was
to bring peace and stability to the region, which does not align with the
administration's policies in the region.
What makes
the timing of the deal more suspicious is the fact all of these countries were
not at war with Israel.
What sort
of peace agreement is it if the warring parties are not included? It raises
eyebrows and questions concerning what inspired the Abraham Accords.
Jeffrey
Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, answered this question in a piece he
wrote after the deal was struck. He claimed that the so-called peace agreement
would not bring peace to the Middle East, because it only benefits its
masterminds: Trump, the United Arab Emirates’ (UAE) Mohammed bin Zayed (MBZ),
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Each of them wanted this deal for their political purposes and survival.
For
example, Trump, who was the primary architect of this deal, wanted it for two
reasons: first, to boost his reelection campaign by claiming victory in the
Middle East and, second, to distract from his lousy handling of the pandemic in
the public discourse.
Netanyahu
wanted it for a variety of reasons: first, to present himself to Israeli voters
as a statesperson with an excellent reputation on the world stage and, second,
to distract voters from his horrible management of the pandemic. Third, he got
to establish diplomatic relations with new Arab states.
The two de
facto leaders of Saudi Arabia and the UAE, MBS and MBZ, were motivated by the
same purpose – to present themselves as constructivist leaders.
Since they
plunged into the national politics of their countries, both have been accused
of getting involved in other countries' local politics, from heavily
intervening in the elections in Somalia and the civil war in Libya and Yemen to
the coup d’etat in Egypt and the apprehension of the leader of a sovereign
country. These two wished and craved for this deal more than anyone to unburden
the notoriety, obloquy and infamy associated with their names.
However,
given that Trump allied with Netanyahu and these reckless and authoritarian
leaders, it is evident that the region has gotten messier and more chaotic. The
assassination of the top Iranian scientist inside of Iran stands as an
excellent example.
It is
crystal clear the Abraham Accords were not driven by aspirations for peace but
rather personal and political ends, and if there is one thing that the Middle
East does need, it is peace plans that serve the interests of certain groups.
That is what the Abraham Accords stand for.
But Trump's
election loss raises the question of the future of the Abraham Accords.
It is a
possibility that this coalition might survive because they all need each other
for their feuds with Iran, and as the ancient proverb says, the enemy of my enemy
is my friend.
Therefore,
the reality that they supposedly have one enemy might compel them to stick to
the deal and even seek further cooperation, even military cooperation perhaps.
But much will depend on the foreign policy of the incoming administration.
It is no
doubt that their approach toward the Middle East will be in stark contrast to
that of the outgoing administration.
However,
since then, U.S. President-elect Joe Biden has introduced his foreign policy
team, including the secretary of state who will have the primary responsibility
of framing and executing his foreign policy.
Many have
already signaled the return of former President Barack Obama's foreign policy.
That means Biden's policy in the Middle East will have much resemblance to that
of the Obama era.
Return Of The Old Guards
Most of
Biden's foreign policy picks, if not all, held senior positions in the Obama
administration. Among those are Antony Blinken for the secretary of state and
Jake Sullivan for national security adviser.
Their selection
has garnered a great deal of criticism and backlash from the right-wing, which
portrayed them as the return of the old administration or a third Obama term.
But the comparison with his old boss has always been there since Biden entered
the race.
Many are
suspicious and apprehensive about what will differentiate Biden and Obama
policy-wise domestically and internationally, which begs the question, what was
Obama's approach to the Middle East?
During his
campaign, Obama promised to reverse the interventionist policies of his
predecessor in the Middle East, which obligated his administration to face the
region with caution.
The Cairo
speech in which he tried to reach out to the Muslim world is an excellent
example of his endeavors to change the American foreign policy tone.
But his
failure to translate such promises into action and reality was not a strategic
dissonance but rather his team's inability to reorientate the traditional
American foreign policy to see a different outcome.
Analysts
describe Obama's approach to the Middle East as a combination of realist and
idealist policies. He believed in regime change in the Middle East but not
through force or military intervention. He preferred diplomacy and social
revolutions.
His
administration’s silence on the Arab Spring in Egypt and Syria and his
enthusiasm to solve the Iran matter through negotiation and diplomacy give a
clear picture of the idealist side of Obama’s foreign policy.
Many
believe since America became mainly energy independent, Obama saw the Middle
East as expendable, and the only reason his administration remained engaged was
to show its alliance to Israel and fight Daesh.
On the
other hand, proponents of his foreign policy characterized him as the greatest
terrorist hunter in the history of America by using drone strikes, and that
shows his hard and realist policies.
Therefore,
it is believed Biden will likely follow in the footsteps of his old boss and
remain engaged in the Middle East but not like the Trump administration.
It is expected
that Biden will call out the regimes in the region for their atrocities and
human rights violations, unlike the outgoing administration, which will
indicate that the Middle East is no longer a priority for U.S foreign policy.
Even de
facto leaders like MBS and MBZ realize that and are trying to step up and fill
the power vacuum the U.S. will leave behind.
However, it
is not clear what Biden's views are on the Abraham Accords, but there is a good
chance that he will do what Obama did and let the Middle East play out. His
decision to go back to the Iran nuclear deal will anger the old regimes in the
Middle East and could conceivably keep the primary beneficiaries of the deal as
MBS, MBZ and Netanyahu.
----
Mohamed Salah Ahmed is a Ph.D. candidate in
political science and public administration at Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt
University
Original Headline: Post-Trump era and the
future of Abraham Accords
Source: The Daily Sabah
URL: https://newageislam.com/islam-west/abraham-accords-biden-follow-obama/d/123648
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic
Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism