Connect with us

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

Turkey’s Upcoming Critical Elections and Its Possible Impacts on Tense Relations with the EU and US

Published

on

Spread the love

By Mahmut Cengiz

Turkey is on the verge of the most critical elections in its history. The country is at risk of being surrendered to the absolute authority and dictatorial regime under the 20-year ruling of the Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi – AKP). Turkey’s democracy has suffered long years under the interference of the country’s elites, which paved the way for creating a fragile democracy, recording periodic military coups in the last decades of the 21st century. However, its delicate democracy has disappeared at the hands of an authoritarian leader, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Its consequences have been costly for Turkish people and harmful to the interests of the western world. Hypnotized by the government-controlled media, almost 40 percent of Turkey supporting the current regime is unaware of what Turkey has lost when it is far from the western values. The western world also has seen the loss of a reliable ally and a model country that combines Islam and democracy, which the world urgently needs today, where jihadist terrorism has been the most significant threat to the world security. This article will answer the questions on the forthcoming elections.

When will the elections take place?

The elections are scheduled for June 18, 2023. However, it will undoubtedly be held before its projected date. Otherwise, Erdogan cannot be a candidate under the terms of the current constitution amended in 2017. The political rivalry, known as “Table for Six” and composed of six political parties in the opposition, stipulates making the elections before April 6, 2023, and gives their support for two-thirds of the required majority, which can allow Erdogan’s candidacy. The second option for the election date has been under rigorous debate. Some believe that Erdogan is authorized to shut down the parliament and take the country to the elections, regardless of seeking parliament’s approval. Others are against this approach and believe that it is a violation of the constitution. However, it would not be wrong to say that no one can stand up against Erdogan’s decision if he shuts down the parliament. As a result, Turkey’s election will absolutely be held before its projected date, and Erdogan will specify the election date.

Why is this election critical for President Erdogan and his entourage?

Some comments underline that Erdogan cannot let the elections be held if he knows he cannot win. Turkey has become an authoritarian regime after Erdogan’s AKP was elected twice in two consecutive elections in 2006 and 2010. The following period has recorded how the regime lacks transparency and accountability and has been involved in crime, corruption, and terrorism. The AKP regime is one of the most corrupt governments in Turkey’s history. A few pieces of its corrupt regime were unearthed on December 17 and 25, 2013 corruption scandals, implicating Erdogan, his family, and cabinet members. The December 17 investigation found the corrupt transactions of a money launderer, Reza Zarrab, who evaded US nuclear sanctions on Iran. Zarrab used Turkey’s banking system in return for millions of dollars of bribes offered to the ministers and bureaucrats.

On the other hand, the December 25 investigation deciphered a bribing system on government contracts run by President Erdogan and his son. Erdogan was able to shut down these two scandals in 2014, but Reza Zarrab, the chief suspect of the December 17 investigation, was arrested in the US in 2016 with the same accusations Turkish prosecutors made in 2013. The US trials convicted the chief suspect and opened another investigation on Turkey’s state bank, Halk Bank. The details of the current investigation carry some troubling messages for the Turkish government.

These two corruption scandals served as a turning point in Turkey’s politics, and the AKP government purged 40 thousand police officers and around 5 thousand judges and prosecutors from the government. The suspicious July 15 coup attempt in 2016 accelerated Turkey’s authoritarianism. Erdogan changed the constitution, swept power in the referendum, and replaced Turkey’s parliamentarian system with a Middle Eastern-type presidential system. The newly established system under Erdogan’s leadership has created a kleptocratic system, with politicians and bureaucrats involved in countless corrupt practices. Furthermore, they have committed state terrorism, forcefully disappearing the opposition members, torturing them, and illegally confiscating their assets. Some evidence indicates that the members of the AKP government have transferred arms and explosives to the jihadist regions. Therefore, Erdogan and his entourage, fearful of future investigations about their wrongdoings, have been aware of the risks if they lose the power in their hands. Turkey’s political system has been getting dirtier and more criminally involved since the corruption scandals. Therefore, Erdogan’s interest in the table is more critical than ever, and the coming election means for himself and his entourage to fight for survival.

Can Turkey have fair elections?

No one relies on the current system and believes Turkey can have fair elections. First, the AKP government’s efforts to protect its regime after the December 17-25 corruption scandals and the suspicious July 15 coup attempt have presented opportunities for Erdogan. After purging thousands of police, military personnel, judges, and prosecutors, no one in the country can even dare to ask any question about any government wrongdoings. The purged officers were replaced with AKP followers. All courts have been filled with judges and prosecutors who openly support the AKP regime. The High Election Board (Yuksek Secim Kurulu – YSK) and Supreme Court judges cannot rule on any decision violating the interest of the AKP government. Each judge knows well that they will be labeled as a terrorist right after their home is raided at dawn by the police, be handcuffed in the back, and be detained if their verdict is against the government’s interests. Therefore, YSK is ready to rule on whatever Erdogan wants in the elections.

Second, Anatolian Agency (AA) is Turkey’s only institution reporting election results. However, it is under the absolute control of the AKP government, and it is expected that they will report results in whatever the government allows to share.

Third, no one knows who will be the rival candidate of Erdogan. However, the AKP has already started putting pressure on the possible candidates. One of them is Istanbul’s Municipality Mayor, Ekrem Imamoglu, a strong candidate that holds the majority of the votes against Erdogan according to the polls. However, he has been indicted for insulting YSK members, which he said “dumb” during the Istanbul Municipality elections in 2019, and sentenced to 27 months imprisonment and a ban on doing politics. Imamoglu will not be the candidate in the elections if the supreme court approves his conviction. Erdogan is well-prepared to exploit the power of laws and judges against his rival with flimsy accusations.

Fourth, Erdogan will be using all government resources to be reelected. His efforts to shape people’s perceptions have brought him almost 30 percent of consolidated voters in the country. A significant portion of these people do not question impoverishing results of the government’s politics but are satisfied to get social aid in small amounts. They believe that these aids will disappear if the AKP is not elected. Another vital tool in Erdogan’s box to shape perceptions is the power of religion. Oppressed by the secular system in Turkey, these people believe that the mosques will be shut down and there will be a ban on wearing headscarves in the universities and government buildings if the AKP is not reelected. Finally, Erdogan’s perception games cogently convey to his adamant followers that Turkey will be in trouble if he is not sitting in his position.

Fifth, Turkey’s economy is in tatters. The government fails to repair runaway inflation and a collapsing lira that have pushed millions of Turks to the brink of financial ruin. In addition, the country turns out to be the hub of money laundering. Many factors play a crucial role during the economic collapse, but the transition to authoritarianism deserves the most attention. To appease people’s reactions and get their votes, the AKP government raised the minimum wage by 55 percent and civil servants’ salaries by 30 percent in January 2023. The government also approved the early retirement of around 1.5 million people. They all significantly burden Turkey’s economy but will bring votes for Erdogan.

Can Erdogan use security and terrorism cards again?

Using security cards depends on how much Erdogan feels guaranteed to be reelected. The more Erdogan worries about the election results, the more he can actively resort to violence and use the power of terrorism. First, Erdogan is one of the leaders who have exploited the power of terrorism worldwide. Knowing what terrorism means for the western world, Erdogan has accused his opponents of being terrorists. Even though terrorism databases have recorded dozens of terrorist attacks by predominantly the PKK terrorist organization in a year in Turkey, Erdogan’s AKP has swayed influence over police and judiciary and directed to conduct thousands of terrorist investigations. Most of these investigations have used scant evidence and failed to convince the western audience. However, it would be easy for the AKP government to be persuasive in the eyes of Turkish people exposed to Erdogan’s media.

Turkey recorded suspicious terrorist attacks between June 7 and November 1 elections in 2015. When Erdogan’s AKP failed to get the majority in the June 7 elections, Erdogan threatened people and said, “give us 400 members of the parliament and let it finish smoothly.” Then Turkey recorded suspicious terrorist attacks between two periods and its immediate halt right after the AKP got the majority on November 1, 2015, elections.

Turkey already saw two suspicious attacks in Istanbul and Gaziantep provinces in November 2022 and attributed them to a Kurdish group in Syria as the perpetrators, including some ungrounded accusations of the United States being behind the attacks. Before the elections, Turkey will likely be recording suspicious terrorist attacks allegedly by ISIS or PKK to convince Turkish people that “foreign forces”—a common phrase used by the AKP to base conspiracy theories that westerners can interfere with the country’s domestic and international affairs— would threaten Turkey’s security if the AKP government is replaced.

Second, Turkey may record political assassinations to convince the voters. Turkey already witnessed the assassination of the head of Grey Wolves, a nationalist movement that believes in the superiority of Turkish ethnicity, who were targeted in Ankara on December 30, 2022. The motive behind the assassination is unclear. It is related to narco-terrorism for some commentators but is a homicide targeting the Nationalist Movement Party (Milliyetci Hareket Partisi – MHP), a coalition partner of the AKP government, for others.

Third, Turkey may see a fake assassination attempt targeting President Erdogan or one of the eminent members of the AKP government. The percentage of floating voters is around 15 percent. It looks quite significant when the government’s current support is around 40 percent. So it may be convincing to show the AKP as a political victim and get votes.

Fourth, the government may target the opposition members out of the country. For example, well-known seculars, Kurds, or Gulenists could be the target to show the operational capacity of the government abroad.

Who is the most critical political party in the elections?

Turkey now has two political blocs: the AKP and MHP coalition is against the opposition bloc, Table for Six. The polls show close results with each other. For example, according to the most recent polls in early January 2023, the AKP and MHP partnership vote rate was 38.2, while it was 42.6 for Table for Six parties. On the other hand, the Kurdish Party, People’s Democratic Party (Halklarin Demokratik Partisi – HDP), vote rate is around 12 percent. Erdogan successfully discriminated against and marginalized HDP and showed it as a terrorist organization; therefore, the Table for Six wrongfully excluded and distanced from HDP, keeping it out of their bloc. No matter how HDP is treated, its 12 percent potential votes will be critical to elect the next President.

What states can actively participate in the elections and favor the AKP government?

Turkey has distanced itself from western values and been closer to authoritarian states in the last years. Erdogan’s relationships with the leaders of authoritarian states have made Turkey vulnerable to these countries’ influences. In this context, Russia, Qatar, and Iran are three countries that support Erdogan’s Turkey. Erdogan’s attitude against the United States has gratified Russia and Iran. The Washington Post article underlined how Russia spent millions of dollars to support foreign political parties and candidates. Russia has already  approved Turkey’s request to delay gas payments. It would not be wrong to say that President Putin wants to see Erdogan in Turkey’s leadership because he knows well that Turkey will continue to take the side of Russia and protect its interests in Ukraine and Syria. Qatar draws special attention in terms of its investment in Turkey. The close friendship between Erdogan and the emir of Qatar is based on mutual interests. Erdogan launders his corrupt money through Qatar, and Qatar’s leader and his business people make considerable investments in Turkey’s business and tourism sectors. Qatar has already injected billions of dollars into Turkey It seems that both Russia and Qatar will continue to loan for temporary relief on the economy before the elections. Finally, Iran enjoys being influential in Turkey’s politics and bureaucracy and will give its support for Erdogan’s reelection.

What may happen if Erdogan wins again?

If Erdogan is reelected, it will substantially impact Turkey’s politics and economy. The AKP lacks the capacity to fix the economy because it is the cause of systemic corruption in Turkey. Almost every government contract includes corruption, and the AKP’s reluctance to curb it will produce an increased capacity for corruption. In addition, the government has already raised salaries, increasing the budget deficit. As a result, inflation will soar, and Turkish people will see rising prices after the elections.

There are quite a few opposition voices in Turkey, and they will be silenced, too. Turkey will again see police operations and terrorism accusations against the opposition with scant evidence. Moreover, Erdogan will continue to blackmail and threaten the western world for his interests. Turkey will not see any improvements in human rights and free media issues. On the contrary, disgruntled and desperate people will leave the country and flock to western countries in masses.

What may happen if the rival candidate wins?

Seeing the rival candidate win is not a solid option, considering how the AKP government can interfere with the elections. However, if the rival candidate wins, he will have difficulty restoring Turkey to its original settings in politics and economy. It will be challenging to fix the economy. The swift transition to democracy would be the best solution to rescue Turkey from the remnants of authoritarianism and remove it again from the influences of Russia and Iran. In this context, western support will be critical to returning Turkey to a democratic state. Also, supposing the rival candidate is courageous enough to shed light on AKP’s 20-year wrongdoings, the world, in that case, will be shocked to see how much money is stolen from Turkey, homicides committed, and criminal and mafia groups are supported under the AKP’s leadership.

What can the US and EU do?

The AKP’s 20-year ruling has seen fluctuating relationships between Turkey and the US. The AKP’s early years, which prioritized transitioning to democracy, got support from the US. In the meantime, no one has understood the close friendship between President Erdogan and former President Donald Trump, but it was mainly based on the mutual personal interests of both leaders. It was, for Trump, to protect his business interests in Turkey. In contrast, it was, for Erdogan, to see Trump’s intervention in the Halk Bank investigation in the US that implicated the AKP government. If Erdogan is elected, the US should be ready again to see Erdogan’s blackmails in NATO and use his cards of Syria, Iran, and Russia. The only solution would be to support fair elections and pressure the international community to participate in the country’s elections.

European Union (EU) deserves the most considerable criticism regarding its silence during Turkey’s transition to an authoritarian regime. Fearful of Erdogan’s blackmail to release millions of Syrian and Afghan refugees in Turkey, the EU has watched human rights violations and media closures by doing nothing. Like the United States, the EU should take an active role in a fair election in Turkey. Otherwise, the EU will constantly see Erdogan blackmails on the refugee crisis and his obstacles to Finland and Sweden’s accession to NATO.

To conclude, Turkey will have its most critical elections in 2023. It is a chance to see a democratic Turkey and a reliable member of NATO again if the rival candidate wins the elections. However, the indicators of who can win the elections do not seem promising. Considering his wrongdoings and the possibility of future investigations, Erdogan cannot leave his position and will do whatever is necessary to win the elections. Turkey can have a hard time before the elections depending on how secure Erdogan feels about the election results. If the polls indicate the rival candidate’s possible victory, Turkey will likely record suspicious terrorist attacks or assassinations. Turkey will be drowned in darkness if Erdogan is reelected, and the Turkish people will pay the considerable cost.

Courtesy: Modern Diplomacy


Spread the love
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

The Pentagon’s THAAD Deployment in Israel: A Signal to Iran and the Question of Global Double Standards

Published

on

By

Spread the love

By Baba Yunus Muhammad

The Pentagon’s decision to bolster Israel’s air defense systems with a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, supported by 100 U.S. troops to operate it, sends a powerful message. The THAAD is designed to intercept ballistic missiles, with Iran clearly in the crosshairs. This deployment is an escalation, illustrating the United States’ unwavering support for Israel in its regional confrontations, particularly with Iran. But it also raises significant questions: Who stands with Iran in this looming confrontation? And does America’s uncritical backing of Israel expose its double standards on human rights and international law?

America’s Stance: Double Standards and Duplicity

The United States’ support for Israel has long been criticized as riddled with hypocrisy. While Washington postures itself as a global advocate for democracy and human rights, it continues to supply the arms that fuel Israel’s military machine, which has been implicated in the deaths of thousands of innocent Palestinian women, children, the elderly, and the infirm. The moral outrage America projects against other regimes, particularly in the Muslim world, is conspicuously absent when it comes to Israel’s transgressions. This duplicity reflects a clear bias that undermines America’s credibility as a global arbiter of justice.

One of the most troubling aspects of U.S. foreign policy is the selective application of international law. Israel, despite numerous violations of human rights, continues to receive billions in military aid annually. Meanwhile, countries like Iran are sanctioned, demonized, and isolated for far less egregious offenses. Is this about justice, or does Israel’s strategic importance in the Middle East render its violations invisible to Western eyes?

The Forgotten Two-State Solution

As the world watches the current crisis, one fundamental issue has been almost entirely ignored: the two-state solution. Once at the center of every peace process, the notion of a Palestinian state coexisting alongside Israel has been sidelined. Instead, the narrative is now dominated by military escalations, airstrikes, and defense systems. The right of Palestinians to self-determination, to a land they can call their own, is no longer part of the discourse.

Israel, with the tacit approval of its Western backers, continues to pursue its “Greater Israel” agenda. Settlements expand, Palestinian homes are demolished, and Jerusalem is increasingly Judaized, all in direct contravention of international law. The West’s silence on this is deafening. Why has the right of the Palestinians to a country of their own been so easily brushed aside in the name of ‘security’?

Iran: A Nation Standing Alone?

In this complex geopolitical landscape, Iran is portrayed as the villain. Yet, it is important to ask: does Iran truly stand alone? While it lacks a superpower willing to defend it from Israeli aggression, Iran is not without allies, both politically and ideologically. More importantly, as an Islamic republic, Iran’s identity is rooted in its faith, particularly in tawheed (the belief in the oneness of Allah) and its reliance on divine justice. Iran may not have the might of THAAD systems, but it has the conviction that Allah’s help is greater than any worldly power.

The strength of the Islamic faith is not found in military arsenals, but in the belief that the oppressed will eventually triumph over the oppressors. As history shows, superpowers come and go, but the power of the oppressed, united in their faith and resolve, can overcome even the most insurmountable odds. Iran, in its resistance against Israeli aggression and Western duplicity, is likely to turn to Allah for protection and justice, embodying the Qur’anic verse:

“And if you remain patient and conscious of Allah, their plot will not harm you at all. Surely Allah is fully aware of what they do.”** (Qur’an, 3:120)

This verse speaks to the resilience of those who trust in Allah against overwhelming odds. It is a reminder that no matter how powerful the aggressor, the ultimate victory lies with those who maintain their faith and stand firm in the face of oppression.

Other Critical Issues

There are additional issues worth considering. The first is the long-term impact of America’s military involvement in the region. By sending troops to operate the THAAD system, the U.S. is not just providing arms—it is becoming an active participant in the defense of Israel, making it complicit in whatever actions Israel takes. This blurs the line between defense and aggression, and America must ask itself whether it is willing to shoulder the moral responsibility for Israeli actions.

Secondly, the deployment of advanced defense systems like THAAD only exacerbates the arms race in the Middle East. As Israel strengthens its defenses, neighboring countries will feel compelled to enhance their own military capabilities, increasing the likelihood of conflict rather than reducing it.

Finally, the question of international accountability must be addressed. If Israel, with its advanced military capabilities and the backing of the world’s most powerful nation, continues to flout international law without consequence, what message does this send to other countries? Does might make right? And where does this leave global efforts to maintain peace and justice?

Conclusion

 The Pentagon’s THAAD deployment in Israel is a reminder of the dangerous escalations that are taking place in the Middle East, with Iran as the primary target. Yet, the broader context reveals a troubling picture of global double standards, where Israel is given a free hand to violate human rights while the rights of Palestinians are ignored. As Iran prepares to defend itself, it does so with the faith that no system, no army, no alliance is greater than the power of Allah. The verse from the Qur’an serves as a powerful reminder of where true strength lies: not in missiles, but in faith, patience, and the belief in divine justice.


Spread the love
Continue Reading

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

Escalating Conflict in the Middle East: Iran’s Retaliatory Strike against Israel and the Growing Regional Tensions

Published

on

By

Spread the love

The ongoing conflict in the Middle East continues to devastate countless lives, particularly in Gaza, Israel, and Lebanon. Recent escalations, including Iran’s ballistic missile strike on Israel, highlight a dangerous shift in the region’s dynamics. In this article Baba Yunus Muhammad delves into the circumstances surrounding Iran’s aggressive response, the motivations behind it, and the broader implications for regional stability. It also questions the role of global powers, particularly the United States, in perpetuating the conflict, while reflecting on the absence of a unified military alliance among Muslim nations to defend against Israeli aggression. 

The recent intensification of conflict between Israel, Gaza, and Lebanon has further deepened the tragic cycle of violence in the Middle East. The situation, marked by Israel’s military actions and retaliatory strikes from its adversaries, particularly Iran, is emblematic of decades of geopolitical tension, occupation, and armed confrontations.

Context of the Iranian Attack on Israel

Iran’s ballistic missile attack on Israel on October 2nd marked a sharp escalation in the broader conflict. This retaliatory strike was a direct response to Israel’s aggressive targeting of key Hezbollah and Hamas commanders. The killing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Israel’s invasion of Lebanon pushed Tehran to act, signifying a growing frustration within Iran over perceived inaction. Iranian officials made it clear that the attack was not only defensive but also justified as a response to the increasing Israeli strikes across the region. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued the order, and the attack was supported by both the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and the Iranian defense ministry.

While Iran’s previous strike in April was seen as more symbolic, this latest assault was far more aggressive. It hit multiple urban centers, and Tehran claimed that 90% of its missiles reached their intended targets. Though the full extent of the damage is still unclear, this represents a significant shift in Iran’s strategy, moving from symbolic gestures to serious military reprisals.

Why Did Iran Retaliate?

Several reasons motivated Iran’s retaliation. First, the assassinations of Hezbollah and Hamas leaders by Israeli forces played a crucial role. Iran had already held off from responding to earlier provocations, particularly the assassination of Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh in July. Iranian officials believed this restraint, done in hopes of securing a ceasefire deal in Gaza, was a strategic mistake. Instead of quelling Israeli aggression, it rather emboldened Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to continue with escalations. Israeli strikes in Lebanon, coupled with the rhetoric from Netanyahu that recent actions aimed to “change the balance of power in the region,” convinced Iran’s leadership that not responding would further weaken their regional influence.

The Iranian response also reflects a growing divide within its leadership. Hardliners in Tehran, who felt that the country’s reputation as the leader of the “axis of resistance” was being undermined, viewed the lack of previous retaliation as a sign of weakness. This pressure led to the aggressive missile strike in October, highlighting that the country was ready for war if necessary. This response from Iran signals a turning point, where the threat of broader war no longer serves as a deterrent for Iran’s leadership.

US-Israel Relations and Broader Implications

The United States remains Israel’s staunchest ally, with its defense of Israeli actions viewed by many Muslim nations as part of a larger pattern of Western double standards. During Iran’s missile strike, US forces stepped in, intercepting some of the missiles, and US President Joe Biden dismissed the attack as “ineffective.” The unyielding support for Israel, however, continues to fuel resentment in the Muslim world, where many see this dynamic as part of an ongoing effort to suppress Muslim populations and movements.

The broader geopolitical context of this conflict cannot be ignored. While NATO is often lauded as a successful military alliance in the West, it is seen in many Muslim nations as a destabilizing force, responsible for chaos in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Iran’s frustration with NATO’s continued support of Israel, and its pivotal role in defending Israeli interests, underpins much of the animosity. Tehran views the Western military alliance as fundamentally biased, contributing to the marginalization and suffering of Muslim-majority countries.

The Role of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)

As the conflict escalates, a question often asked is: why doesn’t the Muslim world form a unified military response to counter Israeli aggression? The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the world’s second-largest intergovernmental body after the United Nations, has been relatively passive when it comes to creating an effective military coalition. Muslim countries, with their vast resources and manpower, could potentially form a powerful defense alliance, yet political fragmentation and differences in national interests have prevented such a coalition from materializing.

Historically, regional divisions, ideological differences, and varying levels of cooperation with Western powers have stifled the creation of a unified Muslim military front. The creation of a robust defense mechanism under the OIC remains elusive, as individual member states often prioritize their national interests over collective action. Nevertheless, the absence of such a coalition leaves Muslim populations across the region vulnerable to foreign aggression and continued conflict, with Israel benefiting from its military superiority and diplomatic support from the West.

If peace is ever to be realized in this volatile region, there must be a reevaluation of the global power dynamics, especially the role of the US and its unwavering support for Israel. At the same time, Muslim countries will need to overcome their internal divisions to form a unified front capable of protecting their interests against external aggressions. Until then, the cycle of violence is likely to continue, with devastating consequences for the people of Gaza, Lebanon, and Israel.

Baba Yunus Muhammad is the President of the Africa Islamic Economic Forum, Tamale, Ghana


Spread the love
Continue Reading

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

The US Election and its Impact on the Middle East

Published

on

By

Spread the love

As the U.S. presidential election draws near, the United States faces several economic, social and political challenges that will play a decisive role in determining whether Kamala Harris or Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States. Inflation remains high, the gap between the haves and the have-nots is growing, and views on immigration and the border continue to polarize the public. But the election’s outcome will also have implications beyond U.S. domestic policy.

The overriding foreign policy matter at issue in this election concerns economic competition with China and the associated tensions in the South China Sea, through which one-third of global trade passes. Other foreign policy priorities include the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Hamas conflict and its regional repercussions. Though the divide between the Republicans and the Democrats on the Ukraine war might be irreconcilable, their differences on the Middle East, including the war in Gaza, are mostly minor. Apart from safeguarding the vital interests of the U.S., both presidential contenders will eschew deep involvement in Middle East affairs.

Determinants of U.S. Policy

Five constants drive the direction of U.S. policy toward the Middle East. The first is Israel’s security and the U.S. commitment to maintaining Israel’s military superiority in the region, which is apparent from the state-of-the-art military hardware that Israel receives from the U.S. compared to the less advanced equipment delivered to other countries. The second constant relates to U.S. control of the region’s oil and ensuring its passage through the straits of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb in order to reach international markets. U.S. commitment to this cause undermines any Iranian threats to block navigation through the Persian Gulf and Houthi threats to block access to the Red Sea. The third constant is the U.S. commitment to preventing Russia or China from dominating the region’s politics, a fact understood well by Middle Eastern countries. The fourth constant is ensuring the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. And the fifth focuses on combating terrorism.

The U.S. understands that given the complexity of Middle East politics, it cannot transform the region. It learned this lesson from the failures of its 2003 invasion of Iraq despite its heavy investment in democratization and reconstruction efforts. Its limited interest in the Middle East has driven its increasing desire to restrict its involvement there. This started when the U.S. intensified its pivot to Asia, an effort that began during Barack Obama’s presidency.

Moreover, U.S. voters (with the exception of Arab and Muslim Americans) are preoccupied with problems that have nothing to do with the Middle East. The enormous interest of activists and the media in the Gaza war does not reflect the priorities of voters themselves.

Straightforward Republican Approach

If Trump wins the presidency, he will pursue a foreign policy based on “America First” principles, including by signing trade deals, displaying a reluctance to engage in military interventions abroad and reducing international commitments, including to NATO.

In the Middle East, Trump has shown little interest in the crises in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen, preferring to focus on domestic challenges instead. On the Israel-Palestinian conflict, he has shown little enthusiasm for a two-state solution and prefers to impose quick solutions without focusing on their feasibility.

Trump will likely seek direct normalization deals between Israel and its neighbors (especially Saudi Arabia), similar to those he concluded between the Israeli government and other Gulf states in 2020. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman is eager to sign a peace treaty with Israel, even without an Israeli commitment to establishing a Palestinian state – though he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seem to have put the project on hold pending the outcome of the U.S. election, preferring to give credit to Trump rather than Harris for its success. Trump could also consider signing a formal defense treaty with Saudi Arabia to prod it to make peace with Israel, but this would be challenging considering that getting the support of two-thirds of the Senate seems unlikely. After making peace between Israel and Saudi Arabia, Trump will likely pressure Qatar, Kuwait and Oman to conclude similar deals.

As for relations with Iran, Trump will adopt a more hostile policy, but he is unlikely to resort to military action, relying instead on sanctions and economic pressure. He has hinted at the possibility of a deal with Tehran, but only on his terms. It’s unclear if the Iranians can afford another four years of austere sanctions under a second Trump term, so they could be amenable to striking a deal, facilitated by the recent election of a reformist Iranian president. Despite the apparent different approaches between the Republicans and the Democrats on Iran’s nuclear program and regional proxies, the core U.S. perspective on Iran cuts across the two political parties. Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, and although Biden pledged to restore it if he won the presidency, lengthy negotiations in Vienna did not yield results, and the Trump-era sanctions remain in effect.

Nuanced Democratic Approach

Most Republican congressional candidates who won their primary races support Israel unconditionally. In contrast, Democratic congressional candidates adopted a more nuanced approach. They invariably voiced their commitment to Israel’s security and well-being but with specific qualifications about human rights, the suffering of Gaza’s civilian population and a two-state solution. Still, Democratic candidates avoid extreme criticism of Israel based on the fact that results in the primary elections demonstrate that anti-Israel views are still unpopular among mainstream Democratic supporters. Protests at college campuses against Israel’s conduct in Gaza neither shape public opinion nor determine the Democratic Party’s policy choices.

The divide among Democrats on this issue results from profound differences in the views of the demographic groups that make up the party’s base, with younger, non-white voters being more sympathetic to the Palestinians and more critical of Israel, while older whites are more pro-Israel. Republican support for Israel, meanwhile, has increased with the surging influence of right-wing Christian groups within the party.

Since the inception of the Gaza war, Democratic members of Congress have been pressing to end the war and provide aid to Palestinians trapped in Gaza. However, Democrats’ criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu antedate the Gaza war. President Joe Biden and Democratic members of Congress opposed Netanyahu’s judicial overhaul and the appointment of two radical lawmakers to Cabinet.

Arguably sympathetic to the case presented by Palestinian rights activists, Harris has been unable to reconcile the demands of the pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli sides of the party. Pro-Palestinian activists felt that the Democratic Party failed to address their demands for primetime speaking slots during the 2024 Democratic National Convention, further exacerbating their feelings of marginalization.

If Harris wins the election, her foreign policy will adhere to the broad lines of the Democratic Party, such as defending democratic principles and human rights, strengthening international alliances, confronting global challenges such as climate change and nuclear proliferation, cooperating with allies, especially in NATO, and paying particular attention to confronting Russia in Ukraine and curtailing Chinese influence in the Pacific region.

As vice president, Harris avoided talking about strategic policies and initiatives in the Middle East. But if she wins the presidency, she will be forced to deal with the region’s intractable issues. It’s unlikely that U.S. support for Israel will witness a dramatic shift if Harris wins office. Still, in recent months, she has taken steps to distinguish herself slightly from Biden. She was the first senior U.S. official to call for a cease-fire in Gaza, opposing the idea that a deal can be reached only after Hamas is destroyed. She stressed Israel’s right to defend itself but chose to boycott Netanyahu’s speech before Congress in July.

Harris did not want the Gaza war to be one of the main issues in her election campaign. She chose Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who has limited foreign policy experience, as her running mate to sway uncommitted Democrats to vote for her. (Nearly 19 percent of voters in the Minnesota Democratic primary for president voted “uncommitted.”) Walz has recognized Israel’s right to defend itself and distinguished between Hamas, which he condemned for the Oct. 7 attack, and the civilians who have been caught in the crossfire in Gaza.

Ultimately, Harris’ position on ongoing tensions in the Middle East will be uncertain. During her tenure in the Senate, Harris consistently voted against arms deals with Saudi Arabia and U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen. In 2020, she stated that the United States must reevaluate its relationship with the Saudis to defend U.S. values and interests, though she did not specify which values and interests she was referring to. Harris’ policies will likely mirror Biden’s. Her goals will include strengthening security relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia and cooperating in technology and the green energy transition. In the context of the ongoing escalation between Iran and Israel following the assassination of senior Hezbollah and Hamas leaders, Harris is likely to adopt a balanced approach toward Iran and stress the need to renegotiate the Iran nuclear deal, pending the outcome of the fighting between Israel and Hamas and Hezbollah.

Limits of U.S. Foreign Policy

Many in the Middle East understand the limits of U.S. policy in their region. They support U.S. engagement when it comes to combating terrorism and keeping sea lanes open for trade. They also accept, though grudgingly, the unpopular constants of U.S. policy, especially Israeli exceptionalism and regional supremacy.

They also recognize the United States’ reluctance to engage militarily in the region on matters that do not directly intersect with its own interests. In 2012, Syrian President Bashar Assad admitted to having chemical weapons but said they were meant for use only against foreign aggression. Obama warned him against using them against his people, saying he would be crossing a red line. But before the year’s end, Assad’s forces used sarin gas in rebel-held areas near Damascus, killing 1,400 people. The U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations supported punishing Assad’s army for committing the massacre, but failing to secure authorization from either chamber, Obama opted against using force against the Syrian regime.

In September 2019, the Houthis targeted Saudi oil installations. They expected the Trump administration to defend the kingdom, but it did not. The Saudis viewed the Houthi attacks as a threat to international oil supplies, a view that Washington did not share because the incident had little impact on U.S. oil imports. That such attacks disrupted the flow of Saudi oil to Europe, China and India did not bother Washington.

The United Arab Emirates says it does not expect to resume talks with the U.S. over a multibillion-dollar deal to buy F-35 fighter jets regardless of who wins the election. Trump had signed an agreement to supply the UAE with the advanced aircraft, which no other country in the Middle East has besides Israel, before the end of his presidency in early 2021. The Emiratis now say the same factors that caused the suspension of the talks when Biden took office still exist, so they do not plan to reopen negotiations.

Apart from achieving vital national interests, the Middle East is of little interest to the United States and U.S. policymakers. The region accounts for less than 5 percent of the world’s economy, much of which comes from hydrocarbon exports. This lack of interest gives the region’s authoritarian leaders impunity to violate human rights and oppress their people.

Hilal Khashan, a Professor of political science at the American University of Beirut and a respected author and analyst of Middle Eastern affairs, is a contributing analyst at Geopolitical Futures, and author of six books, including Hizbullah: A Mission to Nowhere. (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2019.) He is currently writing a book titled Saudi Arabia: The Dilemma of Political Reform and the Illusion of Economic Development.is a contributing analyst at Geopolitical Futures. 

This article was first published in the Geopolitical Futures


Spread the love
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 Focus on Halal Economy | Powered by Africa Islamic Economic Forum