Israel exposes the contradictions in Biden’s foreign policy

White House Faces Dilemma: Can It Offer Unwavering Support to Israel While Simultaneously Mitigating Escalation?

Monday's press conference at the US State Department showcased an unparalleled level of discomfort. Matt Miller, the spokesperson, grappled for 50 minutes with the intricate web of contradictions within President Joe Biden's foreign policy, rather than with the journalists present.

Central to the confusion was Biden's conflicting messages to Israel following Iran's recent extensive drone and missile attacks. On one hand, Biden asserts unwavering "ironclad" support for Israel. On the other, he emphasizes the US's commitment to "prevent escalation," urging Israel to exercise restraint in its response. The question looms: Which of these directives takes precedence?

If the US indeed maintains an ironclad, unconditional support for Israel, President Biden effectively ties American grand strategy to Israel's actions in the coming days and weeks. For instance, if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right coalition opt for a show of force against Iran, perhaps launching attacks on Iranian territory or targeting its nuclear facilities, Tehran and its proxy militias across the Middle East may feel compelled to retaliate against Israel to avoid appearing weak.

In such a scenario, with the US committed to defending Israel, a conflict could escalate rapidly, potentially drawing the US into a war with Iran. Meanwhile, Russia and China may align themselves with Tehran, further complicating the geopolitical landscape.

Alternatively, President Biden could opt for a conditional approach to US support for Israel. While affirming the US's commitment to Israel's security, Biden could emphasize that this support hinges on Israel refraining from further escalation. This approach acknowledges Israel's agency in the situation and seeks to avoid exacerbating tensions.

However, adopting such a stance would necessitate reframing the language used to describe the US commitment. Terms like "ironclad" may no longer be applicable if the support is contingent on Israel's actions. This shift in rhetoric would require careful messaging to maintain the credibility of US support while emphasizing the importance of de-escalation.

In such situations, it typically falls to figures like Secretary of State Antony Blinken to navigate the complexities and reconcile conflicting priorities. Press briefings, like the one led by Matt Miller, become platforms where these nuanced positions are articulated, albeit sometimes with evident struggle. In Miller's case, the repetition of terms like "ironclad" alongside references to "de-escalation" highlights the challenge of reconciling competing objectives within US foreign policy.

Struggling to resolve the underlying contradiction, Matt Miller appeared to both frustrate the journalists in attendance and himself during the press briefing. At one juncture, he pleaded, "I don't know how many times you've heard me say it," acknowledging the repetitive nature of the message. Miller hinted at the extensive discussions on the matter not only within the State Department but also with counterparts worldwide.

Yet, even this acknowledgment failed to quell the confusion. Miller inadvertently delved into a potential quagmire when he elaborated that "publicly, of course, we are committed to the defense of Israel." When pressed about private conversations, Miller deflected, refusing to comment on such matters.

This exchange underscores the challenge of balancing public commitments with diplomatic realities, as well as the limitations faced by spokespersons in addressing nuanced foreign policy issues during press briefings.

The briefing thus coughed up an entire hairball of contradictions. Biden has affirmed and reaffirmed his support for Israel since Hamas sadistically attacked the Zionist state on Oct. 7. But he’s also cajoled, coaxed and all but commanded Bibi to show restraint in bombing the Gaza Strip and to facilitate more humanitarian aid — so far with limited success. The death toll in Gaza having passed 30,000, would Biden’s pledge of support still hold at 50,000, or 100,000?

There’s also the paradox of the conflict in the Middle East compared with Ukraine’s war of self-defense against Russia. Ukraine has been the victim of drone and missile attacks from Russia for more than two years; many of the drones are the same type that targeted Israel, made in Iran.  The “‘shaheds’ in the skies above Ukraine sound identical to those of the Middle East,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy observed ruefully this week. “European skies could have received the same level of protection long ago if Ukraine had received similar full support from its partners in intercepting drones and missiles.”

The asymmetry in President Biden's approach towards Israel and Ukraine highlights the complexities and challenges inherent in navigating international relations. While Biden has tolerated Israel's actions that cross his stated "red lines" and continues to supply weapons without conditions, he imposes restrictions on Ukraine, prohibiting the use of American arms to strike targets inside Russia and withholding certain types of ordnance.

One explanation for this apparent contradiction could be Biden's concern over the potential escalation of the conflict between Russia and the West, given Russia's possession of nuclear weapons and its willingness to use them as threats. In contrast, Iran does not possess nuclear weapons (yet), while Israel does, adding another layer of complexity to the situation.

These contradictions underscore the nuanced and multifaceted nature of international diplomacy. As the poet philosopher Walt Whitman famously noted, contradictions can be a sign of a sophisticated understanding of the world's complexity. In navigating such contradictions, policymakers must weigh various factors, including geopolitical realities, strategic interests, and the potential consequences of their actions.

Indeed, the complexities and contradictions within US foreign policy are increasingly being laid bare by events unfolding across the globe. In 2024, these tensions are particularly pronounced as various crises in different regions, from Eastern Europe to the Middle East and possibly Asia, converge to challenge traditional diplomatic paradigms.

The US finds itself balancing the need to pledge unwavering support to its allies, whether through NATO or emerging Indo-Pacific alliances, to deter adversaries like Moscow and Beijing. Yet, simultaneously, it must navigate the delicate balance of preventing any one ally from provoking a conflict that could escalate into a broader war.

As witnessed in the challenges faced by figures like Matt Miller during press briefings, these contradictions are becoming increasingly untenable. The potential consequences of these tensions extend beyond diplomatic headaches, threatening the stability of regions and, ultimately, global peace.

As events continue to unfold, the pressure on US foreign policy, and potentially President Biden himself, is likely to intensify. The stakes are high, and the world watches anxiously as these dynamics play out on the international stage.

Source: Moneycontrol‍