Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1390542533-1-scaled

The follies of Biden's upcoming Middle East trip

The president's visit this week to Israel and Saudi Arabia will pick up where his predecessor's regional policies left off.

Analysis | Middle East

President Biden’s trip to the Middle East is in danger of delivering a moment of self-mockery, taking to a new high the incredulity of the administration’s own efforts to cast its reactions to Russia’s Ukraine invasion as based on universally applied principles of law and democracy.

Saudi Arabia will welcome a U.S. president who had promised a principled change in U.S. relations with the Kingdom. Biden now arrives as a supplicant pleading for increased oil production. The administration's responses to the Ukraine crisis have accentuated a politically threatening energy crisis, paving the way to Jiddah.

Before that, of course, Biden lands in Israel, where the sense of his own political transience in some way matches that of the now-ousted coalition (its new status is that of caretaker government) that will host him as he offers little beyond continuity with Trump policy.  

That is most evident in Biden’s enthusiastic championing of the Trump-Kushner Abraham Accords.

To recap, the Arab state normalization drive with Israel under Trump was led by the UAE, followed by Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan.

The president has justified his Saudi trip as being about more of the same, specifically “national security for Israelis.” The visit is expected to produce some incremental upgrades in Saudi–Israel relations, such as overflight rights, while falling well short of establishing full relations.

More significant perhaps is a prospective U.S.-led institutionalization of Iran-facing cooperation on air and missile defense between Israel and several Arab states (extending beyond the Abraham Accords signatories). That may be on the formal or side meetings’ agenda during Biden’s summit with the leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council +3 (Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq) in Jiddah.

Chalk up another win for arms manufacturers and bloated military budgets, but it’s hard to see how broader U.S. interests or the credentials of the Biden administration will be burnished by this visit. Quiet, tentative cooperation of additional Arab states with Israel already exists, forcing it prematurely into the public eye — as cover for an embarrassing presidential climbdown visit — has more downsides than up.

Even in narrow political terms Biden’s jumping on the normalization bandwagon, while producing scraps in comparison to Trumps veritable banquets, only makes this administration appear as a less capable version of its predecessor.

However, the need for a Biden course correction on Middle East runs far deeper. Biden should be focused on deescalating regional tensions, on shrinking the selective application of norms gap in the Middle East versus Russia/Ukraine policy, and on facing up to the Achilles heel of the normalization equation — Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.

It is in this last realm that Biden has most shamefully offered a presidency of continuity with Trump.

Palestinian-free normalization was the product of a Kushner-Netanyahu-Mohammed bin Zayed fix. It was designed to upend the conflict resolution-promoting incentives of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative to give Israel a freer hand in trampling Palestinian rights and to advance a militarist zero-sum approach to regional “diplomacy.”

The Biden administration should want no part of it and should instead reintroduce actual peace-making into its Arab-Israeli regional toolbox.

Yet in this arena, as elsewhere, Biden has normalized Trump’s bitter legacy against Palestinian freedom, eviscerating any residual prospect of a two-state outcome as America beds down in its role of handmaiden to a regime which Palestinian, Israeli and now the global blue-chip human rights organizations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have defined as meeting the legal threshold of apartheid.

Certainly, U.S. administrations have a long history of failure when it comes to advancing peace, holding Israel accountable, or standing up for Palestinian equal rights. Trump took America's embrace of Israeli maximalism and permanent disenfranchisement of Palestinians to a whole new level. Whether in its unconditional endorsement of Abraham Accord-style normalisation, its retention of the relocated U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem, or maintenance of the unprecedented inclusion of Israel’s illegal settlements in bilateral agreements between the United States and Israel, Biden has conspicuously failed to fundamentally alter, let alone reverse Trump’s policies.

Israel continues to enjoy unconditional aid and wholesale American diplomatic cover in international fora, never held accountable for its illegal actions and human rights violations, including its immiserating the lives of Palestinians in Gaza, who have endured an illegal Israeli-led siege and naval blockade for more than a decade and a half. The U.S. statement regarding Israel’s killing of Palestinian-American Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu-Akleh, diverging from independent U.N. and media investigations and seeking to underplay Israel’s role, is the latest addition to a risible Biden record.

Even the promised minimal gesture of reinstalling the U.S. Consulate General to the Palestinians in East Jerusalem has failed to materialize in the face of Israeli objections.

The two areas in which Biden tweaked Trump policy add up to very little of consequence. He and his team have resumed rhetorical incantation of the “two-states” mantra, while adding a new linguistic flourish in the form of a call for Israelis and Palestinians to enjoy "equal measures of freedom, security, prosperity and democracy.”

That would be quite something, perhaps even a game-changing aspiration, were it matched by policy. However, as inequality in every realm is exacerbated by Israeli actions, the phrase takes on an Orwellian sense, as cover for a policy of malign neglect.

In a second shift, the Biden administration has reestablished channels of communication with the Palestinian Authority and the PLO leadership. More significantly, however, an administration that professes itself to be leading a global battle between democracy and authoritarianism failed to support, and secure the necessary Israeli compliance with, a plan to hold Palestinian elections — or to hold the increasingly isolated and unpopular leaders of the “moderate PA” to account when elections were indefinitely postponed last April.

Under current conditions the PLO/PA is so hollowed of public legitimacy, so bereft of political strategy, and so divided, that sustaining it, primarily serves to strengthen Israel’s free hand.

So far, so bad.

What makes this moment so poignant and the message of this visit so intolerable, however, is the new geopolitical context.

Neither American double standards nor its indifference to the well-being of those living in the Global South are the stuff of breaking news. And that reality is not lost on most of the world. But the tone of moralizing crusade Washington has adopted in regard to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has created a moment in which its “do as I say, not as I do” reality could hardly be made more stark.

In taking to the op-ed page of the Washington Post to justify his visit, Biden wrote of applying universal human rights standards to the Middle East, of fundamental freedoms, and of ending U.S. combat missions in the region.

Laudable goals all.

That is, until the yawning gap between those words and the realities of U.S policy kick in —` for Palestinians especially, but also for millions more of the region’s people who must suffer continued U.S. mollycoddling of allied human rights abusers, U.S. drone strikes and arms sales or Israeli spyware.

Mind that gap, Mr. President.


Editorial credit: Michael F. Hiatt / Shutterstock.com
Analysis | Middle East
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.