[ad_1]
The Arab world awaits, as usual, the results of the American elections, which will take place in three weeks, in the hope that this will make a difference in the policies pursued by the strongest, richest and most capable country in the world, with regard to its many, various and profound issues and problems.
As usual, the outcome of those elections, whether in favor of a second term of Donald Trump, the Republican candidate, or in favor of Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential candidate, will not come from a big difference, unfortunately, in the sense that this will not change much in US foreign policy in practice. And that the difference will be only in tone, or in diplomatic behavior, from a crude and direct policy to a soft and deviant one.
Perhaps what is assumed here is that the foreign policy of the United States of America is characterized by continuity, since it is the institutions, lobbies and decision-making centers that make that policy, with a minor role for the president, and this is true. for Middle East issues, in particular the issues of Palestine, Syria and the Iranian presence in the region. The interests of the United States as a country are represented, while the president (and his party) has more space in the formulation of internal policies and decisions, i.e. where the direct interests of American voters are represented, giving priority to internal affairs and their living conditions (taxes, health, education, work, infrastructure).
Thus, we can see that Trump’s policies did not differ much from those of his predecessor Obama, especially in Palestinian and Syrian affairs, I mean in practice, while Barack Obama was kinder and more understanding, but only in theory. Indeed, the policies pursued by President Obama have disappointed many regimes and political movements, especially regarding the silence on the Syrian regime and the indifference to the tragedy of the Syrians, and the pressure on Israel regarding the rights of Palestinians and the confrontation with the Iranian influence in the Arab region. However, this disappointment and consequent trauma hinges on a brief and partial reading of US politics, as if this were a normal country and not a superpower, or as if it were operating according to the wishes and interests of this or that party, or as if his motive was based on certain political, moral or ideological constants.
The story is illustrated by the fact that many of us think about politics with our emotions, desires, interests and mindsets, in the sense that we do not think from the perspective of other countries, that is, from their view of themselves and their interests, and this it is true of the policy pursued by the Obama administration, whether we like it or not.
On the other hand, they believe that the Arab countries have something to push the United States to push towards the adoption of policies compatible with Arab interests, in this or that question, which is not the case, as the United States is the who have the cards of pressure and power, especially since then His experience confirms that whatever he does, the countries concerned will not be able to and will not be able to deviate from their availability and dependence on them, especially in the economic, technological and security fields, the which explains the difficulty of political separation from them.
The United States acts according to its understanding of its superpower interests. They no longer care about who controls the region, neither Russia, Turkey, Israel or Iran, as long as that holds its position and preserves its interests.
Beyond this and that, some think that US policy is determined on the basis of the same standards that are being adopted in the Arab world, where the president is the one who decides everything, in terms of policies and options.
There is no doubt that the Obama administration’s Middle Eastern policies are very disappointing, as it handed Iraq over to Iran, following its withdrawal from it, and seemed to facilitate it to maximize its influence, from Yemen to Lebanon, through Iraq and Syria; This is on the one hand. On the other hand, this administration refrained from taking any action to stop the deterioration of the situation in Syria, rather it allowed the regime to continue killing and destroying it, and then forcing it to Russia. In addition to these two, he distanced himself from any pressure on Israel that would lead to equitable rights for Palestinians, and even swallowed all his talk about the settlement freeze.
But what should also be understood here is that the United States is doing this based on its understanding of its own superpower interests that no longer cares about who directly controls this region (neither Russia, Turkey, Israel, nor Iran. ), as long as this maintains its position and safeguards its interests, it does not affect its security, especially with the shift of its interests to Southeast Asia and its increasing dependence on its oil and gas reserves.
Perhaps this explains the fact that the US administration, during the Trump era, kept an eye on everyone’s dilemma, namely Russia, Iran and Turkey, and worked to exhaust and exhaust them and hit them together, and that doesn’t. it’s going back, but playing and punishing and not managing a conflict or crisis, but rather as an investment in them. With her awareness of her power of control and possession of the force cards, she decides when and when.
However, we should note two important and dangerous paths: the first is the devastation of the Arab East and the fracturing of its societies, particularly Iraq and Syria. And the second is to ensure Israel’s security and stability for decades, and the United States is not innocent, neither of this nor of that, with the responsibility of our governments for all that happens to us and those around us.
Therefore, those who expect something new, from a practical point of view, will not find it, regardless of who will reside in the American White House, for the next four years, whether it is Trump or Biden.
Source link
