Who’s steering the ship? Navigating America’s conflicted approach in the Middle East – Middle East Monitor

US foreign policy in the Middle East appears to be adrift, no longer guided by fixed strategies or clear goals. Instead, a chaotic process, akin to political decentralization, is underway. While the Trump administration contributed significantly to this disarray, the ensuing bedlam was arguably inevitable. This situation arises when a nation prioritizes the interests of another over its own.

Consider the perplexing statements emanating from the US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee. It is often impossible to discern whether he speaks on behalf of the United States, Israel, Christian fundamentalists or himself. In his latest outlandish remarks, Huckabee offered a unique interpretation of old ideas advanced by Israel’s most extremist elements.

“Muslim countries have 644 times the amount of land that are controlled by Israel,” Huckabee told the BBC. “If there is such a desire for the Palestinian state,” he added, “there would be someone who would say we’d like to host it, we’d like to create it.”

This diatribe followed Huckabee’s suggestion that Palestinians relocate to France, reacting to an official French announcement of its intention to recognize a Palestinian state.

READ: ‘We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran’: Trump

Such defensiveness is neither diplomatic nor indicative of a country with a clear and articulate foreign policy agenda. If anything, it mirrors Israel’s own defensive stance towards anyone who dares criticize its military occupation, apartheid or genocide in Palestine.

Israel’s Foreign Minister, Israel Katz, is a master of political defensiveness. Overwhelmed by growing pro-Palestine sentiment among world governments, Katz, hardly a seasoned diplomat, retorted with equally vindictive language. When Ireland, Spain and others indicated a willingness to recognize a Palestinian state, Katz said that these countries “are legally obligated to allow any Gaza resident to enter their territories”.

To an extent, the shift in Israel’s foreign policy discourse is understandable. Before the war, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu devoted much of his time to celebrating Israel’s increasing integration into global affairs, particularly its supposed embrace by the Global South.

Now, the tables have turned. Israel is essentially a pariah state. Its leaders, including Netanyahu himself, are either wanted by the International Criminal Court, officially sanctioned or under investigation for war crimes.

But why does Huckabee exhibit the same degree of defensiveness, attacking other world governments on behalf of Israel? The story becomes even more bizarre. When questioned about Huckabee’s BBC theories regarding a Palestinian state, a US State Department spokeswoman, Tammy Bruce, told reporters, “I think he certainly speaks for himself.”

Bruce’s remarks raise further questions: Why is the US ambassador to Israel “speaking for himself” and not his own country? And why is he conveying Israel’s political sentiments? More urgently, what exactly is ‘American policy’, according to Bruce, and where does the president stand, not only on Palestinian statehood but also on the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza?

Delving deeper into this would likely yield only confusion and contradictions, some of which are evident in Huckabee’s own recent political statements. For example, he contended in a 10 May interview that “the United States isn’t required to get permission from Israel to make some type of arrangement that would get the Houthis from firing on our ships.”

READ: Iran shoots down Israeli F-35 fighter jet over Tabriz, reports Iranian agency

Coupled with news that the US was involved in indirect talks with the Palestinian group, Hamas, some analysts concluded that the US was steering its policies away from the Israeli agenda, heavily promoted daily by the pro-Israel lobby in the US.

Yet, Huckabee soon reverted to his peculiar brand of politics, which, more strangely, is publicly disavowed by the White House.

Traditionally, US foreign policy has always tilted in favor of Israel, a historical balancing act between US and Israeli interests. The complete shift towards Israel began taking shape during George W. Bush’s terms, thanks to Israel’s ability to insert itself as a critical player in the US’ so-called “war on terror”.

Despite Barack Obama’s generosity towards Israel, he did, at least towards the end of his second term, attempt to return to the old balancing act. This culminated in the largely symbolic gesture of abstaining from a United Nations Security Council vote on 23 December, 2016, condemning Israel’s illegal settlements.

The pro-Israel agenda returned with a vengeance during Trump’s first term, with David Friedman and Mike Pompeo serving as US Ambassador to Israel and Secretary of State, respectively. Friedman perfected the art of offensive language, reportedly calling members of J Street “capos”, and embodied the most fundamentalist and extremist notions adopted by the Israeli right. Pompeo was an equally ardent pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian diplomat.

The difference between Trump’s first administration and the current one is that the former was largely coherent. This current administration, however, is as confused as it is confusing. It neither subscribes to the fraudulent pro-Israel balancing acts of the Democrats, nor is it committed to a singular agenda that unifies all its foreign policy actors.

It is obvious that US foreign policy in the Middle East is no longer operating based on a clear, complex but dynamic strategy that integrates military, economic, and geostrategic interests. This has been exploited by figures like Netanyahu to prolong the chaos in the region and to push further his extremist, settler-colonial agenda.

However, this chaotic state could also present an opportunity for those striving for a just, peaceful and stable Middle East. Indeed, US contradictions and the absence of true leadership should compel regional and international players to activate a multilateral approach to conflict resolution that prioritizes the interests of the occupied and subjugated Palestinians, in accordance with international law. 

OPINION: Red card for genocide: Why FIFA must be held to account

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.