American paradoxes and the war in the Middle East

The main drawback of Blinken's policy is that he has focused most of his diplomatic efforts on moving Gazans to Sinai. Egypt did not agree to this scenario.


The Middle East is on the brink of a regional war, and the United States obviously bears responsibility for this. In this context, we would like to note several paradoxes, notes ‘Al Khaleej’ from UAE.

The first is the predicament in which the United States finds itself. In recent decades, successive American administrations have consistently declared that their country ‘is leaving the Middle East’ with all its chronic and re-emerging crises. They concentrated on East Asia to counter China.

Despite this strategy, the United States is now almost completely consumed by wars in the Middle East.

The second paradox: the Biden administration, unlike previous governments, showed no interest in resolving the Palestinian issue, unlike Donald Trump. But the Democratic government is now more involved in the Gaza war than any other US administration in the long-running Arab-Israeli conflicts.

The third paradox represents a serious decline in the effectiveness of America’s political management of crises in the Middle East. She constantly changes her rhetoric, which affects her relationships with traditional allies. Worse, the US doesn’t know how far it can go by directly participating in a regional war it says it doesn’t want.

The absolute bias of the United States against Israel is nothing new since the establishment of American hegemony after World War II. But this time they seem unable to keep the situation in Gaza under control, which is about to escalate into a dangerous regional war.

For example, the current US Secretary of State Antony Blinken cannot be compared with Henry Kissinger. Yes, they are both Jewish and loyal to Israel, but Kissinger has proven himself to be a competent foreign minister for a superpower, while Blinken has been careful to emphasize his religious affiliation.

The main drawback of Blinken’s policy is that he has focused most of his diplomatic efforts on moving Gazans to Sinai. Egypt did not agree to this scenario. Jordan also could not remain silent about the consequences of such a decision. And the Palestinians themselves are not ready to go to Sinai due to fears that this will be the beginning of a second Nakba.

So, for the first time in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the US administration has no idea what might happen the next day.

The fourth paradox: US military and intelligence support for Israel, arms supplies, sending US aircraft carriers and battleships to the Eastern Mediterranean, as well as joint planning and preparation of military operations have reached unprecedented proportions.

At the same time, the Biden administration fears the consequences of a long and costly ground war and has asked Israel to delay the deployment of troops to the Gaza Strip under the pretext of preserving the lives of hostages and completing the training of the US army stationed in the region, fearing that they would be attacked by so-called “Iranian agents”.

The fifth paradox is that the Biden administration, which has relied on the conflict in Ukraine to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia and reaffirm its unilateral leadership in the international system, is faced with a difficult question: what is more important for American interests – victory in the conflict in Ukraine or salvation Israel?

There is near consensus between the Democratic and Republican parties in the US House of Representatives to support Tel Aviv. At the same time, the new Speaker of the House of Representatives, Trumpist Mike Johnson, is seeking to cut aid to Kyiv. Here we would like to draw your attention to the fact that news about the Ukrainian conflict has almost disappeared from television screens and the front pages of newspapers. This, of course, plays into the hands of Russia and China.

The sixth paradox is the failure to combine within one policy the humanitarian considerations that require the sustained delivery of aid to the Gaza Strip to save the lives of more than two million Palestinians, and the initiation of a large-scale war that would result in more casualties.

The United States still refuses to accept a UN Security Council resolution demanding a ceasefire, under the pretext that it allegedly serves the interests of Hamas, while the Palestinian resistance adheres to a different approach, close to the positions of Russia and China on the need to stop the fighting.

All this points to future changes in the calculations of the conflicting parties in the Middle East.


POLITICO: “Poland’s zombie government shuffles into being”

Polish President Andrzej Duda on Monday swore in a...

To contend with Russia the West needs a deeper understanding of its military past

Western experts have greatly underestimated Russia, reports Responsible Statecraft....

What does the future hold for Argentina’s bilateral relations with Russia and Brazil?

The self-defined "liberal-libertarian" Javier Milei has been elected as...