There are lame duck administrations. And then there is Washington DC in July 2024. There isn’t even a term for it: what do you call an administration whose leader just exited stage left before his own party could lower the boom on him? A ghost administration? A phantom presidency? Any meetings with Biden have been rendered redundant. You’ve got to feel for Benjamin Netanyahu.
During his visit this week, the Israeli prime minister could meet with Kamala Harris — but to what purpose? Even if she had the bandwidth to focus on the Middle East, she would be best advised to avoid any kind of substantive utterance. In an election that is likely to be close, “niche voters” matter greatly, particularly those who care about Israel and Gaza. And based on her time in office, we know how Harris handles difficult challenges: through evasion, inaction, and lots of beaming smiles. Indeed, she has already implemented that approach vis-à-vis Netanyahu. In a move that will be welcomed by the anti-Israel contingent, she has “declined” to attend his address to Congress; and in a nod to the pro-Israel lobby, she also stated that she will meet with him privately.
As Netanyahu negotiates Washington’s corridors and backrooms, he will no doubt be hoping for hints of how the two possible next administrations are likely to deal with him and with Israel. Trump, who last night announced his plans to meet with Netanyahu, can be expected to be blunt. But it will be more difficult for him to glean what a Harris administration would mean for him, as well as his rivals abroad. So, in honour of his visit-in-vain, let us speculate.
In her first speech as Biden’s designated successor, Harris went full-on fulsome: he has achieved more in his one term than other American presidents managed in two; his legacy is unmatched; yadda yadda. Since she has no policy profile of her own after four years of unmatched invisibility, we can only take her at her word — and project onto her the basis of Biden’s policies, plus what we know of her personality.
If we take a good long look at Biden’s presidency, one theme emerges with startling clarity: indecisiveness. This was a man who was uncomfortable with leadership and instead was constantly scanning for approbation. As a result, some initially sound policies failed, some good ideas died on the vine, and the riderless horses of ideology and emotion were given their head.
In the immediate aftermath of Hamas’s October 7 attack, for instance, Biden expressed strong solidarity with Israel. But then pro-Palestinian factions (and even some pro-Hamas voices) on American campuses and in portions of the Arab-American electorate erupted in protest. What was “Genocide Joe” to do? Biden’s formula was something for everyone, and nothing for all — except a big bill.
Weapons and aid to Israel continued, accompanied by preachy admonitions to exercise restraint. The humanitarian concerns for Palestinian civilians were assuaged by his Potemkin Pier: a floating piece of expensive engineering nonsense that promptly failed and had to be expensively dismantled, as all the technical experts warned from the start. The proposed peace plan — a permanent ceasefire that any Israeli interested in survival could hardly agree to — was already floundering. The months just before a US presidential election, let alone one of such exceptional volatility, are unlikely to produce a breakthrough.
A similar picture emerges in relation to Ukraine. True, Biden has been steadfast in his support for Kyiv — steadfast, but indecisive. From the day Russia invaded, the Ukrainians and Zelensky knew exactly what weapons and support they needed to protect their population and their infrastructure. Biden gave it to them — but in staggered deliveries, dribbling it out across the terrible months, wasting the momentum of the early counteroffensive and contributing to the grinding, bloody and no longer hopeful slog this has become. A negotiated settlement that includes territorial losses for Ukraine seems inevitable. Can anyone picture Harris as a tough negotiator against Putin?
Next stop: Afghanistan. By the time Biden became president, this conflict was sucking up far too many resources. Kudos to him for recognising that and continuing with the troop withdrawal that had been initiated by Trump, instead of seeing it as a partisan issue. But a troop withdrawal of that magnitude has to be properly prepared and executed. You don’t start by shutting down your defensive capabilities while relying on a civilian airport in the middle of a city full of desperate people. Even then, a prompt reaction could have saved the day. When the Afghan public started mobbing the airport, flights should have ceased immediately and the airport shut down until a process was in place. The Taliban were cooperating at that point, happy to see us leave and willing to facilitate our departure.
But with the US media slamming Biden for “abandoning” our Afghan allies, his response was to ramp up the speed of the evacuations, which, predictably, caused a stampede. The chaos was an open invitation to Isis, who promptly attacked, killing 13 American soldiers who had been given the hopeless task of guarding Abbey Gate, plus 170 in the roiling Afghan crowd. Those were the only US casualties during the entire two years of withdrawal negotiations and implementation, and they were completely avoidable.
The list goes on. Essentially, Biden “gave” Iraq to Iran, by abandoning his own initial assessment of the situation. The result was exactly what he had feared: sectarian conflict, Shi’a dominance, and an Iranian influence verging on total control of the Baghdad government. Biden even sold out the one little piece of his plan that was working: the semi-autonomous Kurdish region. There, an enthusiastically pro-American population, plus a Christian minority that the Kurds had generously integrated, were repeatedly ignored, rebuffed and denied support by the Biden administration. By way of appreciation, Baghdad is now preparing to ignominiously evict our remaining troops.
As our final example, we must cite his choice of VP. Even if Biden deluded himself that he was up to a second term, and that the voters would agree, he knew that at some point his vice president would become his party’s candidate for the highest office. Yet by what measure of merit could he possibly have thought that Harris is the one? When he chose her, her popularity was so low and her fundraising appeal so non-existent that she had dropped out of the 2020 election months before the Democratic caucus. Observers decried her propensity to randomly change position on key issues. She had, and still has, no foreign policy experience, and did not use her time as vice president to develop a discernible identity beyond what is now being celebrated by some: her race and gender.
Faced with negotiating with such a figure, let alone Biden himself, Netanyahu may be wishing that he, too, had Covid and could go into isolation. Angry Israeli protesters sent him on his way at Ben Gurion, and even angrier American protesters are besieging the Watergate Hotel, where he is staying. Huge demonstrations are expected outside of Congress, with the demand that he be arrested. His hope, in the considerably different circumstances of just a few weeks ago, had been for a statesmanlike reception and substantive talks about a hostage release and ceasefire with an option to continue the degradation of Hamas’s power.
Biden may want one final accomplishment, some kind of Middle East deal. But can a lame duck and an ICC-wanted leader unpopular at home pull off a win? Don’t hold your breath.
Disclaimer
Some of the posts we share are controversial and we do not necessarily agree with them in the whole extend. Sometimes we agree with the content or part of it but we do not agree with the narration or language. Nevertheless we find them somehow interesting, valuable and/or informative or we share them, because we strongly believe in freedom of speech, free press and journalism. We strongly encourage you to have a critical approach to all the content, do your own research and analysis to build your own opinion.
We would be glad to have your feedback.
Source: UnHerd Read the original article here: https://unherd.com/