Blinken in the Middle East: Success or Stalemate
Blinken, the perpetual traveler to the Middle East, visited the region for the seventh time since the October 7 incident. During his trip to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken discussed the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the prospects for a ceasefire. He also emphasized the bilateral cooperation between Washington and its regional allies, especially Riyadh.
While Blinken was in the region, a Gaza ceasefire proposal, put forward by Qatari, Egyptian, and American mediators, was discussed in Cairo. Despite some initial optimism, the outcome of the ceasefire negotiations ultimately depends on the calculations of the parties involved in the conflict.
If the negotiations fail, the Israeli military operation in Rafah, currently considered only a significant threat, could become a reality. Without a clear and explicit plan to protect civilians, the humanitarian consequences of such an attack would be horrific and would weaken Israel’s international standing. In these difficult circumstances, the Biden administration’s management of the Gaza war will also impact U.S. domestic policy.
As pro-Palestinian protests surge across universities nationwide, Biden is currently facing a deep domestic crisis that could affect his presidential election in November.
Challenges Facing Blinken
On his seventh visit to the region, Antony Blinken faces numerous challenges. The main goal of Blinken’s trip to the Middle East is to secure an immediate ceasefire and subsequently the release of Israeli hostages. A new ceasefire proposal is on the table, reportedly including new concessions for Israel.
Blinken describes this agreement as extraordinarily generous and urges Hamas to accept it. Part of his discussions during this visit with Arab ministers also focuses on governance and security in Gaza after the war ends.
In fact, the discussions over the ceasefire agreement and the release of hostages run parallel to U.S. pressure for a broader agreement that includes the normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel and a pathway to establish an independent Palestinian state.
The U.S. Secretary of State is also pushing for sustained humanitarian aid to Gaza, although for the aid to avert the impending famine, it must be significantly increased and likely accompanied by a halt in hostilities.
Failure in negotiations leads to escalating tensions in the region.
The brinkmanship politics of going to the edge has characterized the negotiations over a ceasefire and hostage release between Israel and Hamas during the Gaza war, with both parties proving to be tough negotiators.
It seems that this week’s negotiations have hit a hard wall, and mediators are becoming increasingly frustrated as they feel that whenever progress is made, the involved parties pull back from the understandings they seemed to have reached.
There is a growing feeling that both sides are more interested in the ongoing process than in reaching a positive outcome. If this is the case, the risk of an Israeli attack on Rafah and the resumption of full-scale hostilities exists, which could lead to escalating tensions with Hezbollah in Lebanon and even beyond.
Despite increasing differences, the U.S. remains Israel’s ally.
The United States is Israel’s most important ally. Since the Hamas terrorist attack on October 7, the Biden administration has supported Israel and its security needs.
The U.S. is pushing for the release of hostages to prevent tensions along the Israel-Lebanon border, assisting Israel in preventing Iranian missile attacks, and providing diplomatic support to Israel at the United Nations.
The United States is also seeking ways to advance a two-state solution and normalize relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, both of which are crucial for Israel’s future.
While Washington stands by Tel Aviv, the Biden administration has sharply criticized Prime Minister Netanyahu and his far-right partners, particularly regarding his handling of the inhumane situation in the Gaza Strip and settler extremism.
Netanyahu’s policies and goals for the post-war period conflict with the regional future that the United States is trying to shape. This has recently led senior U.S. officials to call for early elections in Israel, just as the majority of Israelis currently want.
Rafah Operation Hinders Arms Sales to Israel
If the Rafah operation takes place, the United States may impose restrictions on arms sales to Tel Aviv. The U.S. government has not vetoed the military operation in Rafah but remains concerned.
The Biden administration is currently focused on the agreement for the release of hostages, as it would enable a ceasefire and help initiate a process to advance its regional vision, which aims to enhance stability in the Middle East, deepen Israel’s integration, and normalize relations with Saudi Arabia.
There is increasing pressure from the administration on Israel, even at the Biden-Netanyahu level, with revelations indicating that uncoordinated Israeli actions could lead to U.S. countermeasures, including potential restrictions on arms sales. If Israel takes military action, the United States will seek to influence the operation’s execution and possibly neutralize its actions.
University Protests Pose a New Challenge for Biden
Pro-Palestinian demonstrations at U.S. universities are increasingly on the rise, and the Biden administration faces the challenge of incorporating their demands into its predominantly pro-Israel agenda. Since the Wisconsin primaries, the White House’s stance toward the Netanyahu government has gradually hardened due to the urgent needs of the election campaign.
However, despite recent disputes over Israel’s aggressive stance, particularly towards Iran, the current events will hardly impact the overall state of the government. Pro-Israel groups form a significant portion of the Democratic field, and the pro-Israel vote will be a battleground in the November elections.
The most likely action for the president is to walk a tightrope, trying to downplay the political significance of the protests while relying on polls showing that voters aged 18 to 29 have priorities other than foreign policy.
From an electoral perspective, this is a potentially risky strategy. However, a more active stance risks highlighting party differences and, more importantly, those within its electoral base, some of whom are openly dissatisfied and angry with what they perceive as the anti-Semitic tone of the protests.