HIS MOST IMPORTANT accomplishment is what he has not done: He has not started another inconclusive, never-ending American war in a distant land. Instead he is withdrawing troops from conflicts started by other presidents. If he had done nothing else, that would have been enough for many of us.
But he has done much more. Earlier this month . . .
. . . Israel and the United Arab Emirates "moved to establish diplomatic ties after Israel agreed to suspend a plan to annex parts of the occupied West Bank, in a dramatic U.S.-backed shift that signaled Israel's warming ties with the Gulf Arab states." (Felicia Schwartz, Stephen Kalin, and Warren P. Strobel, "Israel, U.A.E. Agree to Establish Formal Diplomatic Ties, The Wall Street Journal, August 14, 2020.)
The Wall Street Journal editorial board puts the president's grand accomplishment in context:
President Trump's Mideast strategy has been to strongly back Israel, support the Gulf monarchies, and press back hard against Iranian imperialism. His liberal critics insisted this would lead to catastrophe that never came, and on [Thursday, August 13,] it delivered a diplomatic achievement: The United Arab Emirates and Israel agreed to normalize relations, making the UAE the first Arab League country to recognize the Jewish state in 20 years.
The agreement is worth celebrating on its own terms but it also holds lessons for U.S. foreign policy. On regional strategy, this shows the benefit of the U.S. standing by its historic allies in the Middle East. President Obama shunned Israel and the Gulf states and sought to normalize Iran. His nuclear deal, an economic boon to Tehran, was a means to an end. But Iran does not want to be normalized. It's a revolutionary regime that wants to disrupt the non-Shiite countries, spread its military influence from Syria to Lebanon to Yemen, and destroy Israel.
Mr. Trump's pivot from Iran reassured Israel and the Gulf states and put the [United States] in a position to broker agreements. Israel and the UAE have worked together covertly, but the agreement will allow deeper economic ties and strengthen regional checks on Iranian power. UAE's move could also spur Bahrain and possibly Oman to seek its benefits, in Jerusalem and Washington, from closer Israel ties. For decades Israel was treated as a pariah state in the Middle East, but that era may be ending.
. . . .
Recall that the mandarins of Obama foreign policy said moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem would cause an Arab backlash. In fact, it is being followed by some of the closest Arab-U.S.-Israeli cooperation on record. Larger strategic realities in the Middle East are more important and are driving this change.
One question is whether a Joe Biden Administration would grasp this, or whether it would follow the Obama model of retrenchment against Iran plus browbeating Israelis for their supposed moral failings. The Biden campaign praised the deal while Ben Rhodes, an architect of Obama Administration policy, blasted it for "the total exclusion of Palestinians."
Yet the coterie of anti-Israel and Iran-friendly Democratic foreign-policy hands may soon find their influence reduced. The UAE deal strengthens the anti-Iran coalition and withdraws an excuse—annexation—that the left could use to attack Israel. Whoever wins in November, the breakthrough leaves the U.S. in a better position in the Middle East.
(Editorial, "Trump's Mideast Breakthrough," The Wall Street Journal, August 14, 2020.)
Trump insider Richard Grinnell's best explains what happened:
For nearly four years, Washington foreign policy experts and Obama administration alumni warned that the Trump administration was jeopardizing any prospects for Middle East peace. By withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal, we were told, the U.S. would alienate itself from its allies. By moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, it would inflame the anger of millions of Arab Muslims. By recognizing Israeli sovereignty in the Golan Heights, it would estrange the Arab states. By maintaining close relations with the Israeli government, it would imperil the lives of Palestinians.
With such a grim record of prediction, Thursday’s historic announcement that the U.S. brokered a normalization agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates — the first Gulf Arab state to announce formal relations with the Jewish State — has the D.C. establishment with its tail between its legs once again. Especially now that so many have accepted prominent roles with the Biden campaign, they might want to consider where they went wrong.
I’d recommend starting with why even the prospect of a Biden administration has been enough to push Israel and many of its Arab neighbors closer together. During the Obama-Biden years, the U.S. prioritized bringing Iran “in from the cold” over regional stability and violence reduction. It also considered Western Europe a higher authority on revolutionary changes to the Middle East balance of power than the U.S. allies who actually live there. The threat of a return to those ways of thinking, and the desire to maximize the advantages of the current administration, helped ink the deal that many saw as impossible.
Rather than instigate a new round of doomsday predictions and too-cute-by-half analyses of how Thursday’s news is somehow “bad” for anyone but the Iranian mullahs, the experts and campaign officials who got this issue so wrong might want to revisit some other previous assumptions.
Sanctions on Iran were supposed to escalate tensions in the Persian Gulf. Expelling Iran from global oil markets was supposed to destabilize the region. The assassination of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani was supposed to trigger World War III. Bringing troops home from Iraq and Syria was supposed to be a capitulation to Russia. Altering the U.S. attitude toward greater Turkish action in the region was supposed to be a needless provocation to Russia. (Either way, it’s always about Russia.) And, most importantly of course, it was an outrage to Western Europe.
Critics who have lamented the Trump administration’s supposed abandonment of allies somehow missed the years of effort it put into building consensus where it counts. Just because an agreement is local, doesn’t receive the blessing of the European Union, and is negotiated outside the walls of the United Nations, does not make it any less “multilateral.” The Biden-world understanding of agreements such as these is that they must take place in the context of the G-20, and must be led by a consensus which, first and foremost, serves the interests and self-image of the “P5+1” or “E3+3.” The consent of the regional stakeholders who actually have to live with the consequences of these agreements is seen as largely irrelevant.
As the Washington establishment and their Potemkin candidate panic about a historic diplomatic achievement that serves U.S. interests, keep an eye on next steps. One possible issue on the horizon is Lebanon. That long-suffering country, Israel’s northern neighbor, is undergoing another heartbreaking period of instability and tragedy, largely imposed by the violent predations of the terrorist organization Hezbollah. For the past three and a half years, the Trump administration has relentlessly squeezed the Iranian terror proxy, chasing it out of international finance, clamping down on its transnational money-laundering schemes, and cooperating with allies such as Germany to eliminate its fundraising and recruiting activities on European soil.
The Trump administration now should consider conditioning current levels of aid to Lebanon (America is its largest foreign-aid donor) on the weakening of Hezbollah’s influence, and a normalization path between Beirut and Jerusalem. The White House also should lean heavily on France for cooperation.
But here’s the difference between the Trump administration and November’s alternative: Just as with all other regional issues, President Trump begins with a policy that he believes serves the U.S. national interest, then cooperates with the U.S. allies who have the most skin in the game. Joe Biden and his army of “experts” surely will spend this fall arguing the opposite: That the U.S. must begin by being ashamed of its own interests, then reach out to like-minded progressives who will agree to impose their preferences on ordinary people elsewhere in the world.
President Trump has now proven that not starting new wars, bringing U.S. troops home, and signing peace deals is only possible when an outsider ignores the Washington foreign policy establishment.
(Richard Grinnell, "Israel-UAE breakthrough proves Trump's critics wrong—again," widely published, reprinted here from thehill.com, August 14, 2020.)
Could Joe Biden has brokered this same agreement? No. First, he is not competent to manage such an undertaking. Second, his backroom handlers detest Israel. The Squad would never approve.
Can pro-Israel Democrats still vote for Mr. Biden? Why?
Their party long ago abandoned its historic support for Israel. Now the other party has stepped forward.
Mr. Trump deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. His name is not Obama, however, and he will never receive one. Mr. Obama, you may recall, was awarded a Nobel about ten minutes after he was sworn in as president, before he had done anything.
Comments