America remains understandably focused on the outcome of a historic election, with most attention directed towards domestic issues such as the economy, abortion, immigration, and the democratic system.
Foreign policy has largely taken a backseat, with limited discussions regarding how Middle Eastern conflicts or foreign interference might impact outcomes in key swing states.
No matter who wins the presidential race, the next U.S. president will face a long list of challenges and unresolved conflicts in the Middle East, as well as a few limited opportunities.
As President Joe Biden finishes his term, a pressing question is how he can take the challenging legacy of his Middle East policy and make it better for whoever succeeds him, whether that’s former President Donald Trump or current Vice President Kamala Harris.
The Biden administration’s approach to the Middle East over the past year has mainly been one of strategic drift, allowing countries like Israel, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis to shape the dynamics. More than a year into an ongoing war between Israel and Hamas that has expanded to multiple fronts, the Biden administration has been unable to achieve most of its stated diplomatic and security goals.
The challenges arise mainly from the complexities of the region, compounded by the fact that the main combatants see their fights as existential. However, this situation also relates to the Biden administration’s unwillingness and inability to create a proactive strategy that engages the region through some of its closest partners.
The Biden administration did not arrive at this moment by accident. It took office focused on many other priorities besides the Middle East; it strongly concentrated on national recovery at home amid the Covid pandemic, while foreign policy priorities included competing with China, dealing with climate change, and rebuilding ties with Europe and Asia.
In 2022, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine caused a spike in global oil prices at a time when inflation was rising in America, leading Mr. Biden to visit Israel and Saudi Arabia to strengthen ties. After China brokered a deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia to restore relations in March last year, the Biden administration doubled down on efforts to enhance bilateral links with Saudi Arabia and worked to broker a Saudi-Israeli normalization deal.
However, the October 7 attacks and their aftermath put the Biden administration into crisis-management mode. It was unable to exercise leverage and utilize its full range of powers to achieve key goals, including a long-term ceasefire and hostage release, sufficient humanitarian aid for Palestinians in Gaza, and protections for civilians.
The best that can be said about the Biden administration’s approach over the past year is that it has worked to prevent a full-blown conventional war in the region and secured the release of some hostages during a temporary ceasefire at the end of last November.
How can the Biden administration make the most of its remaining time in office? It could take meaningful steps to improve its policies in the Middle East, but it must be realistic about what can be done.
It can still shape the conditions in the region and establish mechanisms for cooperation with close partners to make modest steps toward two significant goals: creating a State of Palestine as part of a two-state solution and sustainably reducing tensions with Iran and its network across the region.
Neither of these two overarching items will be fully achieved during the remainder of Mr. Biden’s term, but he can take three actions that will help his successor work toward these strategic outcomes.
Washington can still work towards establishing a State of Palestine and reducing tensions with Iran and its regional influence. Neither goal will be fully realized during the remainder of Mr. Biden’s term, but the administration can help its successor move closer to these strategic outcomes.
First, the U.S. must enhance its role as a regional security integrator among its partners to benefit a broader range of ordinary people across the region. One critical function the U.S. has played over the past year is limiting and containing a larger conflict that could have erupted between Iran and Israel this was evident in the exchange of direct attacks earlier this month as well as in April.
No other external actor possesses the firepower, military presence, and extensive networks of relationships to fulfill this role as effectively as the U.S. can. America should continue to encourage its partners to increase cooperation and coordination on issues such as regional missile and drone defense, as well as coordinated maritime operations that promote collaboration among partners.
Most importantly, the Biden administration could do more, in coordination with Middle East partners, to enhance civilian protections for Palestinians, Lebanese, Yemenis, Iraqis, and Syrians.
Second, the U.S. must build a formal regional diplomatic coalition with partners to advance the two-state solution. The wars involving Israel and Hamas, as well as Israel and Hezbollah, represent arguably the greatest strategic threat to regional stability since the rise of ISIS.
The Biden administration should draw lessons from the Obama administration’s efforts to defeat terrorism; it should form a regional and international coalition to work together toward the goals of building a pathway to a two-state solution. While this may not happen early in the next administration, it should remain a key strategic priority.
This coalition could work together on diplomatic and political steps to help Palestinians create a new governance framework in post-war Gaza. It can also start developing a “marshalling” plan to organize the expertise, knowledge, and financial resources needed to create a viable pathway to a functioning State of Palestine. Additionally, this coalition can work to isolate those who oppose the two-state solution.
Thirdly, the U.S. must isolate extremists in Israel, Iran, and across the region who oppose peace and stability. Regarding Iran and its so-called Axis of Resistance, this means complementing U.S. military efforts against militias and terrorist groups threatening America and its allies.
However, it also means creating a new diplomatic and political coordination effort to support countries and leaders who oppose Tehran’s efforts to destabilize the region and support a two-state solution. A key component of this is sanctioning and isolating Israeli extremists who threaten Palestinians while undermining the two-state solution.
The question of who will take over Middle East issues from Mr. Biden is complex and open to significant debate. If Mr. Biden takes these three steps and improves conditions in the region, both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump stand a better chance of moving towards a more proactive agenda on issues like advancing a Saudi-Israeli normalization accord and fostering regional integration. However, without properly addressing both Palestine and Iran, neither Ms. Harris nor Mr. Trump stands much chance of performing better than Mr. Biden did.
Mr. Trump and Ms. Harris have positioned themselves differently on key Middle East issues, but it remains unclear how much either of them will prioritize the region. Given the high level of uncertainty in America’s election and the Middle East as well, the most that can be credibly said about the main contrast between Mr. Trump and Ms. Harris on the Middle East is this: strategic unpredictability versus a technocratic tactical approach.
Mr. Trump is likely to be less predictable than Ms. Harris he will likely zig-zag on specific Middle East policy questions in the same way he did during his previous term. He may call for quick ends to the wars while simultaneously giving Israel a blank check to do as it wishes.
On issues regarding Iran, Mr. Trump is so difficult to pin down that he is equally likely to seek a rapid deal with Tehran as he is to back Israel’s military actions. It is anyone’s guess what he might do in the Middle East, and Mr. Trump may even surprise himself given his lack of consistency.
Ms. Harris, by contrast, is mostly aligned with her boss, Mr. Biden. Though she has expressed more empathy for the Palestinians, the tone shift has not and likely will not lead to a significant policy change, unless Mr. Biden implements some of the steps suggested above. On Iran, Ms. Harris is expected to focus more on diplomacy but will face challenges due to Tehran’s negative role in regional and global security.
America is on the verge of an unpredictable period in its own politics all during a time of major strategic uncertainty in the Middle East and the broader world. The best path for America to shape and influence outcomes in the Middle East is to work more closely with reliable partners toward two main goals that have been articulated by several U.S. administrations from both political parties for years: a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and an Iran that no longer threatens its neighbors with endless wars.
