‘RECKLESS’ LEGACY

On January 20, Joseph Biden was sworn in as the 46th President of the United States. In his inaugural address, he pledged to work to "make America again the leading force for good in the world."

Biden also addressed to those beyond the US borders recalling that his country will continue to be a role model repairing alliances and engaging with the world once again not to meet yesterday's challenges, but today's and tomorrow's. To support his statement, one of the 15 decisions signed by Joe Biden on his first day in office was the abolition of the visa regime for citizens of some Muslim countries.

How will the relations of the new administration with the Islamic world develop? How will they react to the new American government in the Middle East engulfed in terror and wars? Given the sensitivity of the region, as well as its geographical proximity to Azerbaijan, we are also interested in learning about Washington's Middle East policy for the next four years.

Throughout the history of mankind, the Middle East has been in the focus of great empires. For various reasons, it has attracted the leaders of all powerful states from the Roman Empire to the present day. The region is attractive to this day. Moreover, it has become a hot spot for several great powers waging an open or covert struggle among themselves. Every day, 30% of the world's oil volume produced primarily in the Middle East and North Africa is transported through the Strait of Hormuz. Today, the Middle East continues to play an instrumental role in the global energy supply, being the largest maritime transport corridor across the Red Sea.

In addition, the huge revenues from the export of hydrocarbons after World War II has very quickly enriched many Middle Eastern countries, eventually turning them into the allies of the United States. Therefore, the US state budget get billions of dollars annually due to the Middle Eastern oil. As a result of regional threats and risks of war, over the past ten years, the US military industry has sold a record amount of weapons to the countries of the Middle East.

In 2010, America’s allies from the Persian Gulf bought a record amount of US weapons worth $123 billion. In subsequent years, a series of local wars and the declared fight against terrorism further increased this figuer. For example, in 2013 and 2018, the United States accounted for 30% and 34% of the world arms market, respectively. In 2014 alone, Saudi Arabia spent $80 billion to purchase weapons from the US, while Qatar spent $11 billion. It is not surprising that the lion's share of the Pentagon's customers, which raised $226 billion from arms sales in 2017, were Arab governments of the Middle East. In 2017, Saudi Arabia and the United States agreed on the supply of American weapons worth $110 billion. In other words, the US is always happy to be friends with those who, among other things, are also ready to pay good money for the American friendship and trust.

Apparently, the US is reluctant to give up its role of the leading state in the Middle East in favour of any of its rivals or even allies like Israel – the main regional partner of the US since the Cold War.

On the other hand, over the past decade, a lot of serious problems have accumulated in the Middle East, which the new administration in Washington will have to solve somehow. Indeed, according to Biden's assurances, the US must restore the lost prestige of the "power number one" throughout the world, especially in the Middle East. Below is just a few of the urgent Middle Eastern issues on Biden’s agenda, in order of their relative priority: to ensure the security of Israel while remaining an arbitrator, and not a jealous supporter of American traditions, as was the case during the Trump era; to ensure the security of other regional allies from among the Arab monarchies in order to protect them from the "Iranian threat"; retain influence over Iran by dragging it to the negotiating table on nuclear issues; to return allies such as Turkey to the orbit of pro-American interests; to prevent the serious influence of players like Russia and China in the region, etc.

There are other US obligations as well, including maintaining stability in the energy market, ensuring global security, fighting terrorism, and so on.

In recent years, the Islamic Republic of Iran has become a headache for Washington in the Middle East. Apparently, it is not only about Tehran's intention to acquire its own ‘nuclear toy’. Washington considers Iran to be no less a threat to both its allies and the current regional interests of the US with its ballistic missiles programs and funding the Middle Eastern armed groups. In this sense, the real Gordian knot of contradictions between Washington and Tehran is not so much the level and volume of enriched uranium, but regional competition.

Under the Trump administration, the frontline of open confrontation with Iran, no matter how attractive it was to Israel and the US' Arab allies in the region, expanded the borders of the Middle Eastern front and shifted the US from the position of a superpower, turning it into one of the parties of the Middle East conflicts. The inevitable result of this process was a clear imbalance in the balance of regional forces, which has spurred anti-American forces to take the side of Iran and, in fact, returned to the region the former atmosphere of the Cold War. Thus, due to four years of American confusion in their Middle East policy freed the hands of the Chinese and Russians, who have strengthened their positions in the region in a fairly short time.

Most likely, Biden will sit down at the negotiating table with all the parties to the conflict, including Iran, as it was during the reign of his predecessor, Barack Obama. Thus, Washington, apparently, will try to take Iran off the list of its arch-rivals’, preferring to consider it only a conciliatory rival.

Under the new administration, the US will also change its views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It seems Washington intends to re-join the process not as an "unequivocal supporter of Israel", as it was under Trump, but as a “fair arbiter." On the day of Joe Biden's inauguration, the headline of the official Twitter account of the American Embassy to Israel was changed to "the US Embassy to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza." The previous title was restored a few hours after the publication though. Yet this message is a clear sign that Washington's new policy will be conciliatory and open to dialogue with both sides of the conflict.

Trump's decision made in May 2018 to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem, followed shortly thereafter by the recognition of the Golan Heights as Israeli territory, as well as attempts to impose on Palestine the hastily prepared, but categorically rejected by the administration of the autonomy Deal of the Century, caused tensions between Palestine and Washington. It is likely that Biden will try to return to the traditional positions of previous US governments, supporting diplomatic efforts to achieve a mutually acceptable peace in the region.

In other words, we cannot expect any serious progress on the Palestinian and Iranian issues in the near future, with the exception of Washington's readiness to negotiate with all the interested parties. In a sense, this will give Washington a head start over other global competitors.

Ironically, Turkey, a NATO member and regional ally of the United States for over 70 years, has become another problematic issue for Washington. In recent years, disagreements between Ankara and Washington have piled up. For example, Ankara's purchase of Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems, in response to which Washington suspended the sale of F-35 fighters to Turkey until better times, has grown into a rather complex problem between the long-time allies.

The Obama administration's support for the Syrian Kurds also led to regional differences with Ankara. And the conflict in Libya has further deepened the contradictions between Washington and Ankara over the past two years. The prompt intervention of the Trump team in the Libyan issue in October last year, which practically excluded Ankara from the conflict settlement process, added another knot of contradictions in relations between Turkey and the US.

In addition, Brett McGurk, former US special envoy against ISIS in the Obama administration, has been appointed as the US National Security Council coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa in Biden's new team, which has been announced weeks before the inauguration. McGurk is known for his rather cool attitude towards Ankara and has been repeatedly criticized by Turkey for supporting the Syrian Kurds. But he's not the only such one in Biden's team. Anthony Blinken, who was nominated by the Biden administration for the post of the US Secretary of State, called Turkey "a so-called strategic partner" and announced the possibility of imposing additional sanctions on Ankara over the Russian S-400.

It is well known that Biden had previously been sensitive on the Kurdish issue, calling Trump's decision to withdraw American troops from Syria "a betrayal of the Kurds." In particular, it concerns the American support for the Kurdish Party of Democratic Unity (PYD), which operates in northern Syria and is considered the Syrian wing of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), as well as the party's armed formations, better known as the People's Self-Defense Groups (YPG). Apparently, McGurk's appointment is a sign that the new American administration will continue to support the PYD, which means that the cool relations between Ankara and Washington will continue.

Over the past two years, Washington has also repeatedly expressed clear concern about the actions of the Russian-Turkish tandem in Syria and Libya. In this context, the US will not necessarily put pressure on Ankara. On the contrary, in order to have Ankara by its side, Washington can use other ways, which do not exclude, however, the rhetoric of pressure. However, to do this, the US will have to take into account some of the "red lines" for Ankara, including the Kurdish issue. Apparently, it will be impossible to solve the problems associated with the crises in Syria and Libya, the Kurdish issue, the sale of the S-400 and F-35, as well as the issue of Halkbank in the near future.

It seems that the relations with Turkey, as well as with Iran, will turn into a protracted negotiation process. But Washington will be more actively involved in Middle East politics, focusing on the conflicts in Libya and Syria, which will further increase competition in the region.

Incidentally, Palestine is going to hold parliamentary and presidential elections this summer. This event could be another reason for the successful start of Biden's team.

Interestingly, Biden's predecessor, Donald Trump, made an interesting statement in his farewell speech to his supporters on January 20, wishing the new government success and good luck. He added that he believed in his successor's success because he and his team have laid "a good foundation" for the Biden administration.

Although Trump did not reveal the details of what he meant by "good foundation", he had further strained relations with Tehran by signing a series of tough anti-Iranian sanctions. But despite all the tension in the current situation, it seems that this very factor can strengthen Biden's position at the negotiating table, because now he has more tools to put pressure on Iran.

A similar situation is developing around Palestine. It is clear that Biden will officially backtrack on Trump's course, but as an ardent supporter of Israel, he is unlikely to backtrack on his predecessor's decisions to recognize the Golan Heights and Jerusalem as the territories of Israel. Moreover, although several Arab states have recognised Israel in accordance with the Deal of the Century thanks to the efforts of the Trump team, this can be a good start point for the Biden team, giving it room to manoeuvrer. In other words, the demolition of Trump's old walls and his seemingly "reckless" legacy could be a strong pillar for Biden.