Democrats Must Refute the Obama/Biden Middle East Policy

 

   When Pres. Obama came into office, he had at least two concrete foreign policy goals: Step away from Israel, our only democratic ally in the Middle East, and rapprochement with Iran, the biggest state sponsor of global terrorism in the Middle East. He succeeded in both of these, and the whole region suffered for it. Iraq, Syria, and Libya all were devastated by the rise of ISIS, and every nation that was touched by the "Arab Spring" ended up worse off, thanks to unfocused, if not non-existent US leadership. 

   In Iraq, the unconditional withdrawal was a disaster that directly led to ISIS filling the power vacuum. Worse was Pres. Obama's denial of it, until they had established a caliphate that spread across much of both Iraq and Syria. His focus on appeasing Iran for the JCPOA nuclear pact blinded him to anything other that doing what they wanted, which was for the US to just leave. Only when Iran realized they couldn't fight ISIS alone did Pres. Obama make a half hearted attempt at stepping back in.

   In Israel, Pres. Obama framed his opposition in political terms, against the Likud party and Netanyahu. However, the Democratic party in the US went further, with a growing minority condemning Israel itself as an "apartheid state." The US abdication of leadership in the battle against ISIS in both Iraq and Syria opened the door for Russia to step in, and support Assad. This forced Israel to make a deal with Russia, to defend their border with Syria. Meanwhile, the Obama administration let Assad cross "red lines" with chemical weapon attacks, and indiscriminate bombing of civilians with no repercussions.

   What happened in Libya was more on Secretary Clinton's shoulders than Pres. Obama's, because he seemed happy to lead from behind. In the name of preventing atrocities that they ignored in Syria, they intervened against Muammar Ghadafi, leading to his death at the hands of rebels. The country quickly descended into chaos, which included the killing of four Americans, including US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens at the US Consulate in Benghazi on 9/11/ 12, the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 attack on the WTC and Pentagon.

   The following week, Susan Rice, the Ambassador to the United Nations, appeared on five separate TV news programs, saying that the Benghazi attack was "a spontaneous protest to an internet video," that had no connection to terrorism. As millions of Americans erupted in outrage, not one Democrat stepped up to dispute this outlandish cover story. They all "circled the wagons," so to speak, and ignored any questions from media outlets that weren't "on board." Secretary Clinton was nowhere to be found, this whole period.

   When she finally testified in front of the Senate, she said this famous line: "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans. What difference - at this point, what difference does it make?" Let's examine that statement. It really wouldn't make any difference, if it was either of the two things she said. However, it wasn't. It was a carefully planned terrorist attack, which would make a big difference to most observers. That is why so much effort was spent covering that fact up, and blaming it on an obscure internet video.

   This was a hallmark of the Obama Middle East policy. He had a disregard for the Sunni Arab nations, and an antipathy toward Israel, coupled with a desire to support Shiite Persian Iran. Whatever his reasons, it coincided with the greater Democratic party's opposition to Israel, and a broader public desire to get out of Middle East entanglements. 

   Pres. Obama left office with a huge mess in the Middle East, starting with the ISIS caliphate. There was also the now-solid alliance of Assad with Putin, as well as the JCPOA, better known as the Iran nuclear pact. The Yemeni civil war, Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood problem, and of course Libya were also Obama's legacies in the region.

   Pres. Trump didn't have much time to focus on the Middle East, with all of the bogus domestic political attacks on him. However, he appointed his relatively young and inexperienced Son-in-law Jared Kushner as his envoy to deal with the Israel issue. Based on his negotiations, Pres. Trump did some things in support of Israel that had not been done before, such as moving the Embassy to Jerusalem, and holding the Palestinian Authority accountable for paying terrorists' families. Almost every "Middle East expert" predicted that this would cause upheaval in the region. Nobody seemed to notice that the region was already in chaos, and ask "how much can this hurt to try?"

   The ISIS problem in Iraq and Syria was a higher profile issue, that Pres. Trump campaigned on addressing directly. He did not want to send US troops back into Iraq, but he did, and he did something Pres. Obama never would have dared. He launched 59 cruise missiles into Syria, killing dozens of Russian mercenary contractors, while hosting Chinese Pres. Xi Jinping at Mar a Lago, Florida. This was a bold show of force, that set both of our greater global opponents back on their heels. Needless to say, the ISIS caliphate was not a big factor for long. He also had a summit with Middle East leaders in Riyadh, to shore up relations with Sunni Arab leaders.

   Pres. Trump also withdrew from the JCPOA, because Pres. Obama never made it a formal treaty. It would never have gotten Senate confirmation, so Pres. Trump was free to withdraw at will. While the other parties tried to stop it, there was nothing to be done. Pres. Trump exercised a "maximum pressure" sanction campaign against Iran, to constrain their ability to advance their nuclear program. In response to their continued attempts at international assassination and terrorist attacks, he took another bold action, and launched a missile attack that killed Gen. Qasem Solemani, the head of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. This was twenty years overdue, but it still shocked much of the world.

   Almost out of nowhere, Mr. Kushner's quiet diplomatic efforts bore fruit, in the form of the Abraham Accords, between Israel, Bahrain, and the UAE. A few months later, Morocco also signed a normalization agreement with Israel. Apparently, the bold moves in support of Israel, and against Iran had eased the room for a historic step toward peace in the region. Again, Democrats and partisan media outlets in the US downplayed it, but the fact of it remains.

   Of course, Pres. Trump did not have a second term, and Pres. Biden has continued the Democrats' policy of snubbing Israel, even after Netanyahu left office. He also conspicuously snubbed the Saudis and UEA, shortly after taking office. He's bending over backward and forward, trying to forge a new deal with Iran, even as they show no interest in anything but humiliating "the Great Satan" (that's the US) on the world stage. His team doesn't seem interested in building on the Abraham Accords, and trying to get Saudi Arabia to normalize relations with Israel. In other words, this administration seems to be working against the interest of peace in the Middle East. They support the nations that pledge to destroy us, while snubbing our allies, and few Democrats are calling them out on it. 

   Most average voters don't know much about the Middle East. However, they do know that the Biden team and Democrats seem to be on the wrong side of every policy. The Middle East is no different, and the current opposition to a new Iran deal is just the start of the backlash. Demonizing Israel will also backfire, because it demonstrably gives its Arab citizens more freedom than any Arab nation surrounding it. I don't know what motivates the Democrats' opposition to successful policies, such as the Abraham Accords. However, if they continue to oppose them, they will continue to lose elections beyond the 2022 midterms.