Trump’s reelection is a disaster. But it could also save the Middle East

Columnist
Dan Perry
November 6, 2024

The reelection of former President Donald Trump is a disgrace for American democracy, and an unbearable frustration to many American Jews. But it may come with a potential upside involving the Middle East.

The situation in the region is completely unsustainable, and without someone “breaking heads” it is on a path to regional war and unimaginable death and devastation. Trump’s aggressive, zero-sum approach to foreign policy, particularly toward Iran, might be precisely what is needed to confront and contain actors in the region who have grown accustomed to making a mockery of Washington’s delicate and often ineffective diplomacy.

It’s paradoxical that Trump, known for his abrasive and polarizing nature, may have a shot at cementing a lasting legacy by being the deus ex machina that steps in at this most crucial moment.

Yes, Trump’s reelection is profoundly painful. The United States proved willing to reward a convicted felon, dogged by criminality and controversy, vulgarity and boorishness, in a way once unimaginable. In the end, Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign lacked the vigor and clarity needed to counter Trump’s ability to tap into populist anger and the darker side of human nature. His path back to the Oval Office was a testament to the profound fractures that now define the United States.

Trump’s history of surrounding himself with figures known for antisemitic rhetoric, and his uncomfortably close ties to white supremacist elements, cannot be ignored. He is a man who stands for the kind of hate and division that, historically, eventually comes with ill consequences for the Jews.

But despite that domestic danger, there are reasons to imagine that Trump’s administration will be able to deliver on an international priority that President Joe Biden has not. Trump is capricious, impatient and unconventional — and while these qualities are generally unfortunate, they may actually be helpful in a Middle East that Biden’s diplomatic approach has failed to help stabilize.

That’s because Biden’s measured tactics were, in the Middle East, often seen as simply weak. His unwillingness to take bold action contributed to continued tumult, creating room for Iran and its proxies like Hezbollah to thrive and grow bolder.

Trump, on the other hand, has already shown a propensity for unconventional and often controversial decisions in the region. His previous term saw the relocation of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and the historic Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations.

To my mind, a series of simple-minded actions are needed.

First, it is time to make it crystal clear to Netanyahu that the U.S. will not tolerate the presence of another settler beyond the security barrier line — meaning deep inside the West Bank — and that the liberation of Gaza from Hamas means that the Palestinian Authority, in a rejuvenated form, with needed changes, will be taking over. Netanyahu is more willing to work with Trump than he has ever been with Biden; in congratulating Trump on his victory, which he called “history’s greatest comeback,” he said Trump’s “historic return to the White House offers a new beginning for America and a powerful recommitment to the great alliance between Israel and America.”

Next, it’s time to tell Qatar and Egypt, and the other Sunni countries, that there can be no more toleration of Hamas in the Palestinian areas. No more funding, no more acquiescence, no more harboring of its criminal leaders like Khaled Mashal in Doha.

Then, Iran. The U.S. must make it clear to the Iranian regime that the game is done. No longer will they be allowed to fund, train and deploy militias in countries around the region — like Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Lebanon — in order to destabilize their neighbors and potentially attack Israel. In addition, the ascendant nuclear program must end. There is only one way to make clear to Iran that this is not a negotiation: Show its leaders that there will be a very steep price to pay for noncompliance, including the obliteration of their nuclear sites.

I realize this sounds like Western intervention in other countries. But you know who would love it? Most thoughtful Arabs, Iranians and Israelis.

Now ask yourself whether this sounds like a series of things that Harris would have done as president. The administration in which she currently serves as vice president has pulled back from taking serious action against the Houthis, even as their wartime attacks have disrupted a significant proportion of global maritime trade. Her main policy adviser, Phil Gordon, has proven consistently skeptical about the deployment of American power and the possibility of changing other countries’ behavior.

Is it something Trump would do?

Not necessarily. The Republican Party, in its new mutation, has a strong isolationist streak, and tends to project indifference about other countries — not to mention about doing the right thing in general. Trump’s motivations will be closely scrutinized. His actions must not be mere political maneuvers designed to appease his base, but rather genuine, sustained efforts to create peace. He cannot appear to be a knee-jerk supporter of Netanyahu.

But, unlike with Harris, it is genuinely possible he’ll take this approach — because the outrageous situation in the Middle East calls not for intellectualism but for a strong hand.

The irony is that Biden can salvage something of his foreign policy legacy by beginning to lay the groundwork for this strategy. He could use his remaining time in office to initiate a stronger stance on Iran, moving to help Lebanon reclaim its territory from Hezbollah, and also laying down the law with the recalcitrant Netanyahu. There is little to lose by doing so.

Indeed, to simply stay the course, for Biden, would be to be remembered as a colossal failure in foreign policy — having achieved little while somehow allowing, through narrative and policy failures, the return of a rogue like Trump.

In the end, Trump’s second term represents both a grim turn for American democracy and a peculiar opportunity for redemption on the world stage. While his return to power casts a shadow over the values the U.S. has long claimed to uphold, there remains the possibility that he could transform the Middle East in ways that even his critics might applaud. This paradox — of a leader whose rise signals decay, but whose actions may lead to peace — could be the defining irony of Trump’s legacy.

That, at least, is the positive scenario. I will leave the negative ones — more obvious and easily imagined — to others.

La source de cet article se trouve sur ce site