October 17, 2024
5 minimum read
Biden’s withdrawal will make it more difficult to contain Middle East wars
President’s lame-duck status hampers efforts to manage rising risks in the region as tensions rise in the Middle East
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, Israel has dramatically stepped up its military operations against Lebanon’s Hezbollah, raising the possibility of a war on a larger scale than ever since Hamas’ first terrorist attack in 2023. It seems to be increasing.
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. In what some described as the last official act of the storied politician’s 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. With the pressure for re-election removed, many outgoing incumbents have turned to diplomacy, international agreements, and the use of force to cement their legacies. The Middle East has frequently tempted those nearing the end of their terms to pursue opportunities for glory as peacemakers. In recent months, fading hopes of brokering a normalization deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia appeared to underpin 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 simply lack credibility when making deals or making threats, since they can rarely make promises beyond the president’s term. 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 her criticism of Israel’s military operations sometimes appears to be becoming more pointed. By contrast, former President Donald Trump called on Biden in June to let Israel “get the job done” and has since cast himself as Israel’s “protector,” echoing Harris’ repeated calls for a ceasefire. denounced it as an effort to “tie Israel’s hands behind its back.” return. “These positions reflect broad partisan dimensions of the public’s views on the war, with 42% of Republicans supporting unconditional support for Israel, according to a recent analysis by the Institute for Earth Affairs. compared with just 8% of Democrats, leaving little doubt as to where Netanyahu’s interest lies in the election outcome.
Of course, the influence Biden sought to wield over Prime Minister Netanyahu was always limited. For example, the red line that Biden said he had set for the planned attack on Rafah in May – indicating that the US would not supply offensive weapons – turned out to be more of a pink smudge. did. With the exception of a temporary suspension of some munitions, American weapons continue to flow uninterrupted into Israel. Earlier this year, considerable pressure mounted on the regime to take a tougher stance. With pro-Palestinian protests spreading across the country and large numbers of young voters and Arab Americans voting “unpledged” in the Democratic primary in February, Mr. It seemed like we might face it.
Then came his withdrawal. Biden remains committed to securing a Democratic victory in November. But 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 were smaller than expected. Although polls remain close in Wisconsin and Michigan, there is a new path to victory for Harris. As a result, the greater political threat to the Democratic Party in the Middle East comes from the right.
This may explain why the regime’s recent efforts to gradually increase pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza were not intended to be made public. When details were leaked, the timeline Israel could follow extended beyond the US elections, only highlighting the weakness of the outgoing government’s position. Even if Biden imposes punitive measures, we would like to make lasting concessions to Biden if Trump has a chance of winning in November (in which case Trump is likely to simply regain US support) Israel’s desire to do so will weaken.
As I argued in a recent book, there 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. As allies and adversaries increasingly looked to other candidates for clues about the future of U.S. policy, negotiations stalled and the military remained in what one historian called “a bitter battle over a few insignificant hills.” continued to engage in what he called “a costly battle.”
Lyndon Johnson faced a similar challenge during the Vietnam War. In his March 1968 withdrawal speech, Johnson told the nation that without campaign pressure, he could concentrate fully 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 would buy it from me, then they are willing to wait,” he said in one phone call. Indeed, by the time Johnson left office, negotiators were still at an impasse over what the negotiating table should look like. And without a peace agreement, 1968 was the bloodiest year of the entire 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. However, as conflicts spread across the Middle East, the current president’s hopes of ensuring peace under his watch were likely dashed the moment he drafted his letter of withdrawal and sent it 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.