WASHINGTON WATCH
The Middle East conflict and this year’s US presidential election are impacting one another in important ways. We’re seeing an internal debate unfolding within the Democratic Party, coupled with a hardening of views on the Republican side. As a result, there’s little hope that, whoever wins, there will be any significant change in US policy toward the Middle East region.
Israel’s war in Gaza has caused a rift within the Democratic coalition. During the last decade, several mass movements have arisen in the US in response to women’s rights, “black lives matter,” immigration, and gun control. All of these have erupted as partisan issues pitting Democrats against Republicans. The mass movement in support of Palestinian rights and a ceasefire in Gaza is the latest of these mobilizations and is made up of the same progressive constituent groups. The key difference between the pro-Palestinian movement and the others is that instead being a strictly partisan effort, it has been an intra-party affair pitting key elements of the Democratic coalition against the party’s leadership.
Polling shows that for the first time more Democrats sympathize with Palestinians over Israelis, want an immediate ceasefire, and support suspension of military aid to Israel. They are also disinclined to see the USA militarily involved in conflicts in the Middle East and the world. These attitudes are especially pronounced among young voters and non-white voters— key components of the Democratic coalition. This tension within the Democratic Party is real and may cost the party votes in some states.
While I feel comfortable that there will continue to be a heated debate on the Democratic side over the USA’s role in the region and the world, I’m not confident that the GOP, such as it is, will be capable of engaging in the kind of self-criticism needed to make change possible. A consequence of this will be partisan tension and gridlock making the USA, in the near term, unable to play a meaningful role in contributing to peace and stability in the Middle East. This has resulted in many key US allies moving independently to both secure themselves and ease regional tensions.
While changing attitudes within the Democratic Party resulting from the war have caused some to become alienated from the party’s historic ties with Israel, this shift is also beginning to have an impact on policy. Record numbers of Democratic members of Congress have signed on to bills and letters urging a ceasefire or calling for limits on US arms shipments to Israel.
Republicans, on the other hand, remain dominated by the Christian right and remnants of the neoconservative movement, both of which share a Manichaeistic world view that is uncritically supportive of Israel’s role in the region and the world. Despite the costs in US lives, treasure, and prestige resulting from the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of these ideological currents continue to see the USA as the driving force for good in the world.
Regardless of the outcome of the election, the rift will continue to grow— both within the Democratic Party and between the two parties.
I don’t expect that a Harris Administration would make any immediate or dramatic shift in its approach. The still-dominant Democratic foreign policy and political consultant establishments are cautious and out of touch with the changing dynamics within the electorate and the diminished capacity of the USA in the world. But I do expect that eventually they will be forced to recognize and make some accommodation to the political pressures building from below.
Trump, on the other hand, is Trump. I expect his Administration would be as unconventional and as unpredictable as it was the last time around. That said, despite his desire to avoid entanglement in foreign wars, he would not deviate from, nor would he challenge, his supporters’ beliefs in US primacy and the righteousness of Israel’s behaviours. But the extent of the complex tensions roiling the Middle East region would require him to make some accommodation.
I’m not sure that either he or, for that matter, the Democratic foreign policy establishment, are up to the task. They will need to think bigger than playing “whack-a-mole” with Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen. They will need to recognize that the USA can’t make change without addressing historic grievances. And they will need to address new realities that are transforming the region.
It’s clear that while there is change afoot in both US politics and in the dynamics unfolding across the Middle East, new thinking and creative leadership is needed. This new thinking appears to be developing more in the Middle East than in the US, which is still stuck in the old post-Cold War mindset that sees the USA as the “indispensable nation,” the “shining city on the hill,” or the “beacon of freedom.”
While I feel comfortable that there will continue to be a heated debate on the Democratic side over the USA’s role in the region and the world, I’m not confident that the GOP, such as it is, will be capable of engaging in the kind of self-criticism needed to make change possible. A consequence of this will be partisan tension and gridlock making the USA, in the near term, unable to play a meaningful role in contributing to peace and stability in the Middle East. This has resulted in many key US allies moving independently to both secure themselves and ease regional tensions.
