The Middle East Deals Are Good. Just Give Trump His Due.
Reducing what’s happening in the Middle East to a pro-Trump or anti-Trump narrative is myopic.
| Jonah Goldberg | Sep 18, 2020 | 75 | 56 |
By any conventional or historical measure, the recent breakthrough between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain is a good thing, and the Trump administration deserves its share of praise for it. The refusal of much of the media to take this moment seriously only lends credibility to President Trump’s complaints that the media is out to get him. Who does that serve?
Just give Trump his due. This happened on his watch. He helped it happen. And if he were any other president, the media would have acknowledged, perhaps still grudgingly, that this is—or at least could be—a very big deal.
More importantly, whatever your view of Trump (readers know I’m not a fan), reducing what’s happening in the Middle East to a pro-Trump or anti-Trump narrative is myopic. Much like his 2016 presidential run, Trump’s 2020 Middle East success is a product of timing. Trump couldn’t have won the nomination in 2012 or any of the other years he flirted with running. Similarly, the Abraham Accords couldn’t have been achieved four or eight years ago because conditions weren’t ripe for it.
Historically speaking, a lot of credit goes to Barack Obama. In much the same way that Neville Chamberlain and his policy of appeasement were partly responsible for WWII, Obama’s disastrous Iran deal led the Arab world to re-evaluate its priorities. Shiite Iran wants to dominate the Sunni-majority Middle East. Saudi Arabia fears that the Iranians want to be the caretaker of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, both of which are located in Saudi Arabia.
Obama’s gift to Iran of piles of money and a path to a nuclear weapon was perceived as a betrayal of existential proportions not only by the Saudis and Israelis, but by the smaller Arab states such as the UAE and Bahrain as well. When the U.S. essentially greenlights Iranian hegemony in the region, Israel—Iran’s mortal enemy—looks more like a potential ally to Iran’s regional rivals.
But Obama did something positive, too. He didn’t stop the U.S. oil industry’s technological revolution, which led to America becoming the world’s largest oil producer. Note: I didn’t say Obama is responsible for the oil boom, merely that he didn’t stop it. Both Obama and Trump have tried to take credit for something that mostly just happened on their watch.
It took a long time for the Middle East to lose its stranglehold on the global oil supply—and its ability to set prices at will. But once it happened, the politics and economics of the region were bound to change.
The clearest sign of that was the rise to power of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. He saw the writing on the wall that the Saudis needed to diversify their economy and join the global economy as something more than a fuel depot—not just for the survival of Saudi prosperity, but for the survival of the ruling family.
In this context, the plight of the Palestinians was bound to become less of a priority. For generations, Arab governments used the Palestinians as propaganda tools for their own cynical ends. By focusing popular anger at Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, they took attention away from their own failures. That the Palestinians have always been plagued by terrible leaders—many of whom have served as pawns of the Iranians—made it easy for Arab governments to abandon them the moment they ceased being useful.
There are plenty of other factors. For instance, whatever you think of the Iraq War, it achieved its primary aim: the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. Iraq is no huge success story today, but Saddam’s removal cleared an important roadblock to normalization of Israel in the region.
And of course there’s Israel itself. The tiny nation has shaken off the socialist doldrums to become a technological powerhouse and an innovation hub in the global economy. If you want a post-petrodollar economy, Israel is more useful as a trading partner than as a symbolic foe.
All of these currents led to the signing ceremony this week. Reading the actual agreements, which are light on detail, one might be tempted to say the accords are more symbolic than substantive. But in the Middle East, symbolism is important.
Trump, as is his wont, would have the world believe this rapprochement is the singular product of his deal-making genius. It’s not. But it’s an example of a president seizing on a propitious moment to chalk up an important win. And that’s good enough.
| 75 | 56 |
There’s a tendency to think about this from the vantage of American domestic politics, but perhaps to the Gulf States, Obama and Trump and Biden don’t look too different. The Arab leaders aren’t stupid; they know what they really want—for the US to go to regime change war with Iran and fight to the last American on their behalf—is not going to happen. They can read US popular opinion polls as well as we can and know that American commitment in the region is waning. It’s all about China now, even for the reliable American hawks.
Obama made a deal with Iran to allow them to be a conventional regional power to the chagrin of the Gulf states. Trump pulled out of the deal, instituted new sanctions that were damaging but not an existential threat to the regime, but made clear he would not pursue a war with Iran. None of those changed the facts on the ground regarding the threat of Iran to them. Biden said he would pursue reentering the JCPOA agreement. Trump has signaled that he will pursue a deal with the Iranians in the second term. How different will the parameters of such deals be from Obama’s? who knows? but the material facts and risks will be the same from the perspective of the Gulf states—America’s not going to fight its wars for them—so a regional alliance with Israel makes sense.
Also think about the deal in terms of arms races, which is the subtext with these deals with the UAE and Bahrain. Egypt, Turkey, UAE, and the Saudis are all going to pursue nuclear power technology for ostensibly peaceful means (the economics makes sense), but also to acquire the proficiency in the technology if they extend that to non-peaceful means. The Saudis have also said they will not enter a 123 agreement with the US so that they can enrich their own uranium. Perhaps the Saudis will be willing to make a deal to normalize relations with Israel if they can have access to nuclear technology and maintain their “right” to their own enrichment. One would expect Iran to accelerate they nuclear programs as well as Turkey and Egypt. Would we consider this a net gain for peace in the middle east?
Finally, sidestepping the Palestinian question may seem clever for peace treaties with the Gulf states, but it doesn’t help Israel in the long run. Unlike the Gulf tyrants, we as Americans actually care what happens to Israel. The autocratic princes don’t give a fig about the Palestinians and never have, however their populations do. The threat of annexation risked blowing the ruse since it would essentially close the door on the two-state solution as envisioned in the 2002 Arab Peace initiative. Once that door closes—and the powerful Israeli Far Right and settler fanatics are pushing to close it—Israel will have to choose between the turd sandwiches of apartheid or binationalism. Those who profess to be pro-Israel should consider the ramifications of that beyond domestic tribal politics.
"In much the same way that Neville Chamberlain and his policy of appeasement were partly responsible for WWII, Obama’s disastrous Iran deal led the Arab world to re-evaluate its priorities"
Even with the conservatism and the neoconism in ashes, Mr. Goldberg cannot just give up his pique and the ODS. Iran deal was designed to fundamentally alter the dynamic in the middle east and it delivered inspite of Trump. It is irrational to have affection to the Saudi block at the expense of Iran.
A clear indication of Mr. Goldberg's ODS is in :"Obama’s gift to Iran of piles of money..". Sir, it was Iran's cash and assets we sequestered since 1979. Independent of your assessment of the deal, please don't peddle Fox-like propaganda.
History will tell that burying the hatchet with Iran was one of the best moves in the middle east and Biden will honor the deal should he win.