With the next president of the United States still undecided, uncertainty arises over how the new administration will deal with the worsening situation in Ukraine. As the American ally loses ground to Russia, there are questions about the viability of continuing to seek complete victory.
This comes as the country led by Joe Biden faces difficulties in adjusting its strategy and potentially pursuing a peace-oriented approach in the face of ongoing challenges in the conflict.
One could argue that the situation in the Middle East has suddenly changed for the US: after the last few weeks of war and targeted killings, the position of the country’s closest ally seems suddenly more secure, while the Americans’ enemies seem weaker and more vulnerable.
Israel is dealing blow after blow to Hezbollah and Iran’s broader “axis of resistance,” while the Iranian response suggests significant limits on its capabilities. The regional balance of power appears less favorable to the US’s revisionist rivals than it did just a month ago.
Looking deeper, however, both the strategic deterioration in Eastern Europe and the strategic improvement in the Middle East have something important in common. In both cases, the US government found itself trapped in a supporting role, unable to decide a clear policy of self-interest, while a regional power officially dependent on the Americans dictates the agenda.
In Ukraine, this is going badly because the government in Kiev overestimated its own capabilities to recover territory in last year’s counteroffensive. In the Middle East, it is now going better for US interests because Israeli intelligence and the country’s military have demonstrated a remarkable ability to disrupt, degrade and destroy their enemies.
In neither case, however, does the most powerful country in the world appear to have real control over the situation, a plan it is executing, or a clear means of setting and achieving its goals.
Or as The Wall Street Journal recently reported, “The Biden administration increasingly resembles a bystander, with little insight into what its closest Middle East ally is planning — and less influence over its decisions.”
Because Israel’s actions have worked, it is easy for its friends to suggest that diminishing US influence is basically a good thing: the Israelis know what they are doing. Get the Biden administration worriers out of the way.
But from the perspective of U.S. interests, the marginalization of the White House is a big red flag, even if you agree with every choice Binyamin Netanyahu’s government has made lately (and, obviously, an even bigger red flag if you don’t). ).
On the one hand, there is no guarantee that Israel’s choices will continue to work out. Today’s restoration of deterrence may become tomorrow’s excess or quagmire.
On the other hand, the US has global, not just regional, responsibilities, and an expanding war in the Middle East could be bad for the country’s standing in Asia and Eastern Europe, regardless of its outcome for the immediate participants.
If the US fails to exert real influence over the countries it arms and supports, a weakened Pax Americana will end up being held hostage by too many non-American interests.
Scenarios in which great powers end up being led by their allies and clients are not historically uncommon. But it’s hard to escape the impression that America’s current difficulties are tied to a very specific problem: the vacuum at the heart of this Presidency, Biden’s slow fade from the normal execution of his duties, the general uncertainty about who is really making decisions in country’s foreign policy.
American website Axios documented Biden’s disappearance from public life, noting that he “has not scheduled public events in 43 of the 75 days since abandoning his re-election bid.”
If you think he’s just avoiding campaign responsibilities while fully engaging in foreign policy, that’s probably not the whole story. The president’s absence may indicate that there is more going on behind the scenes.
Even if US foreign policy goes through the next few months without any real disasters, the challenges Americans face alone make it clear that Biden should have resigned from the Presidency when he suspended his campaign.
This would have clarified where the responsibility lies, giving Vice President Kamala Harris some political advantages as well as formal power, and providing voters with more information, from a few months into her leadership, to make their 2024 choice.
It is now too late for that: a transfer of power just weeks before the election would be too chaotic and desperate to be reasonably attempted. And yes, once we get to the handover, neither Kamala nor Donald Trump are exactly reassuring successors.
The crown of the American empire will remain somewhat hollow no matter who ends up wearing it. But Biden in his final days remains a singular case, a distinct kind of danger — for never before has the US faced so many global strategic challenges with a president who is not actually present.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
