Biden’s Obama Moment: When Fear of War Leads to Escaping Forward.

President Joe Biden's administration's commitment to securing a humanitarian pause in Gaza carries implications on the domestic front, in the context of the electoral battle for the White House. The state of Michigan could play a pivotal role, underscoring the significance of the Arab vote, despite its modest size. On a strategic level, this investment in transitional arrangements is accompanied by diligent efforts towards fostering an American-Iranian détente and American-Arab coordination. The Biden administration is hopeful that these efforts will culminate in that much sought-after grand settlement in the Middle East. Former President Donald Trump is wagering on Biden's failure to regain the Arab vote in Michigan, opening a pathway for his return to the White House. Trump also anticipates Biden will fail to secure a major deal in the Middle East, because its core foundation involves appeasement of Iran, instead of imposing a deal on US terms which Trump believes is the best way to resolve conflicts. The coming weeks hold critical importance for both Biden and Trump. The issue of a ceasefire in Gaza will become a focal issue for their respective campaigns, alongside the dynamics of the U.S.-Iranian relationship and Israel’s prospects of war and peace, particularly on the Lebanese front.

?

It may appear simplistic to argue that Michigan could be a key gateway to the White House and that the Arab vote within the state holds this key. But in reality this is becoming increasingly plausible. Indeed, the current Democratic President, Joe Biden, has evidently lost the support of the traditionally Democratic-leaning Arab and Muslim base in the state, many from Lebanon and Yemen, owing to his stance on the war in Gaza.

?

The ‘Abandon Biden’ campaign is uninterested in Biden administration's actions towards the Houthis, aimed at safeguarding international navigation, or its response against the Iraqi Hezbollah Brigades in Syria in retaliation to the targeting of American soldiers. The campaign's primary concern lies in President Joe Biden's conduct since he embraced Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, supplying Israel with weaponry that has inflicted mass death on Palestinians, and rejecting calls for a permanent ceasefire.

?

In the view of his critics, Biden's missteps include spreading unsubstantiated claims, such as his claim that Hamas beheaded children. But his cardinal sin, as they see it, is his disregard for Palestinians killed using American weapons in the genocidal campaign executed by the extremist and racist Israeli government. They contend that the magnitude and nature of Israeli retaliation for the October 7 attacks, which involved terrorist acts against Israeli civilians, far surpass what Hamas has done. The Biden administration's limited call for Israel to exercise restraint while forcibly displacing Palestinians, destroying their homes, and harming their children is viewed as moral duplicity, betraying the ethical principles that Democrats purport to uphold.

?

The Michigan Arab community's dissatisfaction with Biden has emerged at a time when he needs their electoral support, which was pivotal in securing his 2020 White House victory. This is music to Trump’s ears. Trump claims such wars wouldn't have happened if he were president. His political messaging centres on his supposed ability to find solutions through the use of pressure and coercive tools, unlike Biden's tendencies toward co-optation, appeasement, and elusive understandings. According to his campaign team, Trump is a man of peace, whereas Biden has demonstrated a proclivity for war during his tenure.

?

Jared Kushner, President Trump's son-in-law, remains the primary figure handling Middle East affairs, both politically and economically, in the Trump camp. He is confident in his ability to expand and shore up the Abraham Accords for normalization between Israel and Arab nations. Kushner has strategic plans for addressing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and enhancing Arab-Israeli relations. He has a vision for confronting Iran and its proxies without resorting to war, by relying on targeted measures against Iran and its proxies wherever they may be.

?

Trump opposes wars. Even when he inherits them, he says he plans to wrap them up. This is the message conveyed by Trump's team, which does not mind any actions by Biden's administration that could worsen its predicament or achieve breakthroughs when they are beneficial to Trump. Indeed, according to a very close source to the former president, Trump's team welcomes any success by Biden's team in terms of advancing normalization between Israel and Arab countries. Contrary to expectations, the source emphasizes that if normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel materializes under the Biden administration, it won't overshadow the Abraham Accords but rather complement the historic achievement by Trump.

?

Trump doesn't conceal his readiness for making difficult deals. He suggests he has a roadmap for resolving the conflict in Ukraine, which could rile the Americans and the European countries within the NATO alliance and be seen as abandoning Ukraine and its quest for NATO membership. But Trump's pragmatism positions him to propose a deal to Russia, halting its war on Ukraine in exchange for a re-evaluation of the commitment to bring Ukraine into NATO. In the eyes of Trump's team, this isn't abandonment but rather a pragmatic solution to end the war. Trump's aversion to war stands as a pivotal slogan in his election campaign.

?

The Biden campaign may highlight the president's success in containing wars and preventing their escalation, steering the United States clear of their pitfalls. The Gaza war serves as a live example, where the Biden administration deterred Iran on the one hand and reached an understanding with it to restrain Hezbollah in Lebanon on the other, averting a regional war. Additionally, it resisted Israel's eagerness to embroil the United States in a direct conflict with Iran.

?

But the present dilemma for the Biden administration is its perceived weakness and inability to deter direct on American bases and interests, as well as to halt the ongoing bloodshed in Gaza, beyond seeking temporary humanitarian ceasefires. To date, the administration has been unsuccessful in securing a major deal and the lasting settlement it is pursuing.

?

President Biden currently finds himself in what could be termed "the Obama moment," meaning the decision of former Democratic President Barack Obama at the 11th hour not to strike Syria despite having issued orders and declared a red line to halt Syria's prohibited chemical weapons program in 2012. Biden is keen to avoid escalatory rhetoric, so there are no direct parallels to Obama’s red line, but the resemblance lies in their hesitancy and weakness both. Indeed, there is an impression that the current Democratic president failed to respond swiftly enough after suffering blows from Iran-affiliated groups, to reaffirm that United States does not tolerate targeting its soldiers and bases. Instead, Biden seemed to accept Iran's claims it was not involved in the operations conducted by its proxies. Iran’s strategy of feigning innocence succeeded because Biden let it, in other words.

?

The latest attack targeted a base in north-eastern Jordan (Tower 22), killing three American soldiers and wounding more than 40. The Iraqi factions linked to Iran, which claimed this attack, have since taken some steps back, perhaps under pressure from the Iranian government, the Iraqi government, or both. The Iraqi Hezbollah Brigades even announced a "temporary" halt to military campaigns against American sites and bases in Iraq, Syria, and beyond.

?

Biden's response strategy will rely on conducting attacks over several days in Iraq and Syria on targets affiliated with Iran, including Iranian facilities and military personnel. But this might be designed to avoid direct confrontation with Iran which the United States does not desire. However, it is not a resolute strategy and does not convey a message that this is a great power that does not tolerate transgression by Iranian direct or proxy attacks. It is a strategy of weakness and appeasement towards Iran, and the problem is that Tehran knows it and uses it shrewdly in its strategic manoeuvring vis-à-vis the Biden administration.

?

Iran does not seek war with the United States or Israel. It is buying time to complete its nuclear projects and avoid further domestic economic pressures. Some argue that Iran sees an opportunity in calming the Middle East to focus on the "Stans" – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, including Afghanistan and Pakistan – with their resources and benefits for Iran.

?

Tehran may therefore want to cooperate with the Biden administration to find solutions and even facilitate a major deal. This is why it has brought back its former foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, known for his "smiley diplomacy" that facilitates communication with Americans, Europeans, and even Israelis – albeit indirectly.

?

The Biden administration also seeks to avoid a war with Iran. Consequently, it maintains communication with Tehran to prevent miscalculations resulting from the Gaza war. The Biden team is aware that Iran employs a calculated policy, hiding behind proxies, allowing the regime plausible deniability. Both parties fear the consequences of direct confrontation, making the fear of war a fundamental aspect of their current policies.

?

Lebanon stands as a significant intersection in this context, where Hezbollah is a valuable asset for Iran and a potential key to a major settlement if ceasefire efforts in Gaza prove successful. Reports suggest Iran's Foreign Minister has informed relevant parties that Tehran seeks a final solution to the southern border disputes and does not object to U.S. mediation to delineate land borders between Lebanon and Israel.

?

Informed sources closely following this issue suggest that the U.S. acknowledgment of Iran's centrality and pivotal role in the region places Iran within the sought-after grand deal, not outside it, as some claim. They add that border demarcation could end disputes between Lebanon and Israel, leading to national dialogue and the adoption of a defensive strategy where there is no justification for Hezbollah's weapons.

?

While this may be wishful thinking, Lebanese political factions and the government have entrusted Amos Hochstein with the negotiations between Lebanon and Israel. Sources indicate that Hochstein's plan could be unveiled immediately after a Gaza ceasefire. The plan aims to implement UN Resolution 1701 and prepare the Lebanese army for deployment in the south. Simultaneously, negotiations would be launched between Lebanon and Israel through the United Nations regarding the removal of disputes along the Blue Line separating Lebanon from Israel, and diplomatic solutions would be explored for the Shebaa Farms and Kafr Shuba, ?which necessarily involves Syria given that these territories claimed by Lebanon fall within the zone supervised by the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) maintaining the ceasefire between Israel and Syria since the 1973 war. All of this requires Iran's consent and approval.

?

A final word worth revisiting in subsequent articles related to Thomas Friedman's piece in The New York Times, where he discussed what he calls the "Biden Doctrine" with its three paths, as perceived or desired by Friedman. But notable gaps exist in the supposed doctrine including the absence of any mention of Iran in both diplomatic solutions or disruptive roles; and the fact that the U.S. appears to content itself with the recognition of a disarmed Palestinian state as a solution, even though it is conditioned on Palestinian actions ensuring Israel's security. The talk about a U.S.-Saudi security alliance is also crucial but limiting it to the conditions of Saudi-Israeli normalization, contingent upon Israel's acceptance of a disarmed Palestinian state, requires a more convincing elaboration.

?

Currently, all eyes are on the tragedy and predicament in Gaza, and the actions the Biden administration will take in its dealings with Iranian entanglements and challenges.