Biden’s withdrawal will make it more difficult to contain Middle East wars

Biden’s withdrawal will make it more difficult to contain Middle East wars

Written by Andrew Payne

Joe Biden has insisted that ending the war in Gaza and bringing peace and security to the Middle East remain his top priorities in the final months of his term. But despite being relieved of the burden of campaigning after his withdrawal from the campaign trail in July, the president has since proved unwilling or unable to control the risk of spiraling conflict in the region. .

Instead, after Israel strengthened dramatically, military operations A major war against Hezbollah in Lebanon appears more likely than at any time since. terrorist attack First committed by Hamas in 2023.

A look at history and political science suggests that, ironically, Biden’s decision to abandon his bid for re-election is a major reason for his inability to defuse conflict. explained Though considered by some to be the final act of public service in the storied political career, the president’s resignation immediately weakened his ability to manage crises around the world. The erosion of presidential power during one of the most dangerous geopolitical moments in living memory is one of the most serious and underappreciated consequences of the decision to step down.

About supporting science journalism

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting our award-winning journalism. Currently subscribing. By subscribing, you help ensure future generations of influential stories about the discoveries and ideas that shape the world today.

Biden is the third president since World War II to forego reelection, with his predecessors Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson. Other “lame duck” presidents had ambitious “to-do” lists in foreign policy at the end of their second terms. Many incumbent politicians are retiring because there is no pressure for re-election. turn around in diplomacy, international agreements, and the use of force to cement their legacy. The Middle East has frequently seduced those nearing the end of their term. Opportunity to be honored as a peacebuilder. In recent months, Fading hope His brokering of a normalization deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia appears to have maintained Biden’s optimism about stabilizing the region.

However, these plays that remain for posterity usually end in failure. The idea that a president who is not facing re-election is free to act on domestic political concerns is beside the point. “He may be free, but he is nearing the end of his second term and is not being taken seriously,” wrote former presidential veteran William Quandt. President Jimmy Carter’s Camp David Accords led to a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. Lame ducks are rarely able to make promises beyond the president’s term and simply lack credibility when making deals or making threats. Allies and adversaries alike face incentives to consider what future administrations will do instead.

It is no surprise, then, that Mr. Biden’s attempts to moderate Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies have failed. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris continues to hold firm to the current administration’s positions, and at times does so. appeared Her criticism of Israel’s military operations became even sharper. In contrast, former President Donald Trump called Biden ordered Israel to “get the job done” in June and since then cast Myself as an Israelite.”protector,” orchid busting Harris repeatedly called for a ceasefire in an effort to “tie Israel’s hands behind its back.” These positions reflect broad partisan dimensions of the public’s views on the war, with 42% of Republicans supporting unconditional support for Israel, compared to just 8% of Democrats. It is said that there is. recent analysis By the Institute of International Affairs. And it leaves little doubt as to where Netanyahu’s interest lies in the election results.

Of course, the influence Biden sought to wield over Prime Minister Netanyahu was always limited. For example, the red line that Biden said he has set for the May attack on Rafah indicates that the United States will not supply offensive weapons.It turned out It will become a pink stain. Apart from the overview suspension Among some military supplies, American weapons continue to flow uninterrupted to Israel. At the beginning of this year, meaningful pressure He called on the government to take a tougher stance. pro-Palestinian protests clean It appeared that Mr. Biden could cast a significant vote in February’s Democratic primary after Americans, large numbers of young voters, and Arab Americans cast “unpledged” votes.Gaza issueNovember is coming.

Then came his withdrawal. Biden remains committed to securing a Democratic victory in November. However, the strength of the Harris campaign has blunted the power of anti-war voices on the left of the Democratic Party to force a change in U.S. policy. Protests at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago small More than expected. vote remain Close races in Wisconsin and Michigan, but new paths to election victory open up appeared For Harris. As a result, the greater political threat to the Democratic Party in the Middle East comes from the right.

Perhaps this explains why the government has recently taken steps to: ratchet up Pressured Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza. not intended To be published. when details leakedthe schedule Israel was allowed to adhere to beyond the US elections only emphasized the weakness of the outgoing regime’s position. Even if Biden imposes punitive measures, a likely Trump victory in November (in which case Trump is likely to simply restore US support) would force Biden to make lasting concessions. Israel’s desire to do so will weaken.

As I recently argued, bookthere is plenty of precedent for the challenges Biden now faces. In 1952, Truman decided that it was impossible to resolve the UN impasse over an armistice agreement to end the Korean War. Mr. Truman, who removed himself from the presidential race in March, had the political leeway to stick to his negotiating position on the status of prisoners of war, knowing that it would be deeply unpopular with voters. But he lacked the power to persuade those on the other side of the negotiating table to align. Negotiations stalled and the military remained engaged in activities described by one historian as allies and adversaries increasingly looked to other candidates for clues about the future of U.S. policy. called “An agonizing and costly battle over a few insignificant hills.”

Lyndon Johnson faced a similar challenge during the Vietnam War. In his withdrawal speech in March 1968, Johnson said: said He appealed to the public that without campaign pressure, he would be able to focus entirely on the pursuit of peace. However, in a series of recorded telephone conversations, he realized that his decision had seriously damaged his negotiating position. As voting day approached, Prime Minister Johnson urged the remaining candidates to minimize their public statements about the war, fearing it would jeopardize his last-ditch effort to reach an agreement with North Vietnam. practically begged. “If they can hold out for three more weeks and get a little more favorable terms, meaning they can buy the horse from you a little cheaper than they could buy it from me, then they’re willing to wait,” he said. said In one call. Indeed, by the time Johnson left office, negotiators were still at an impasse over what the negotiating table should look like. In 1968, without a peace agreement, bloodiest year of the whole war.

It seems unlikely that Biden will succeed where his predecessor failed. A Harris victory in November would restore some confidence in the outgoing administration’s diplomatic efforts. But as conflicts spread across the Middle East, hopes of securing peace, perhaps under the current president’s watch, appear to have been dashed the moment he drafted his letter of withdrawal. sent it out To the world.

This is an opinion and analysis article and the views expressed by the author are not necessarily those of the author. scientific american.