US Policy in the Middle East... Is It Changing?

The Middle East conflict and this year’s U.S. presidential election are intertwining in important ways. We are witnessing an internal debate unfolding within the Democratic Party, as well as a hardening of positions on the Republican side.

As a result, there is little hope of any major change in US policy toward the Middle East, regardless of who wins the election. Israel’s war in Gaza has caused a split within the “Democratic” coalition.

Over the past decade, several mass movements have emerged in the United States in response to women’s rights, Black Lives Matter, immigration, and gun control. All of these issues have emerged as partisan issues pitting Democrats against Republicans. The mass movement in support of Palestinian rights and the ceasefire in Gaza is the latest of these changes. It is made up of the same core progressive constituencies. The main difference between the pro-Palestinian movement and the others is that it is not a purely partisan effort, but rather an internal affair pitting key elements of the Democratic coalition against the party leadership.

Polls show that for the first time, most Democrats sympathize more with the Palestinians than with the Israelis, want an immediate ceasefire, support a suspension of military aid to Israel, and are less inclined to see the United States militarily involved in Middle Eastern and world conflicts.

These attitudes are particularly pronounced among young and nonwhite voters—a core component of the Democratic coalition. The tension within the Democratic Party is real, and it may cost the party votes in some states. While the shift in Democratic attitudes over the war has led some members to distance themselves from the party’s historical ties to Israel, the shift is also beginning to affect policy.

A record number of Democratic members of Congress have signed bills and letters urging a ceasefire or calling for restrictions on U.S. arms shipments to Israel. Republicans, on the other hand, remain dominated by the Christian right and the remnants of the neoconservative movement, both of which espouse a Manichean worldview that unconditionally supports Israel’s role in the region and the world. Despite the human, material, and prestige losses resulting from the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, these ideological currents continue to view the United States as a major force for good in the world. Regardless of the election outcome, the rift will continue—both within the Democratic Party and between the two parties. I do not expect a Harris administration to make any immediate or radical shift in its approach.

The “Democratic” foreign policy and political consulting establishments remain aloof and out of touch with the changing dynamics of the electorate and the diminishing power of the United States in the world, but I expect that they will eventually have to recognize and respond to the political pressures that are growing from below and offer some accommodation.

But Trump, on the other hand, is Trump. I expect his administration to be as unconventional and unpredictable as ever. Yet, despite his desire to avoid foreign wars, he will not deviate from, or challenge, his supporters’ beliefs in U.S. hegemony and Israel’s righteousness. But the complexity and growing tensions in the Middle East will require him to make some concessions.

But I’m not sure he, or for that matter, the “democratic” foreign policy establishment, can meet this challenge. They will have to think about more than just “trying to calm things down” in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen. They must recognize that the United States cannot effect change without addressing historical grievances. And they must deal with the new realities transforming the region.

Clearly, despite the changes in American policy and the dynamics unfolding across the Middle East, new thinking and innovative leadership are needed. This new thinking seems to be developing more in the Middle East than in the United States, which remains stuck in the old post-Cold War mindset of seeing the United States as the “indispensable nation,” the “shining city on a hill,” or the “beacon of freedom.”

While I am encouraged by the continued heated debate on the Democratic side about the United States’ role in the region and the world, I am not confident that the Republican Party, as it stands, will be able to engage in the kind of self-criticism necessary to make change possible. The result will be partisan tension and gridlock that will make the United States, in the short term, unable to play a meaningful role in contributing to peace and stability in the Middle East.

This has led many key US allies to move independently to secure themselves and ease regional tensions.