The Biden administration has now made three significant moves in the cauldron of conflict that is the Middle East, although a deal with Iran looks set to be a sterner test.
Any new move in the complex world of international affairs needs to be carefully calculated. Scott Morrison found this out last year when, as part of his quest to curry favour with Donald Trump, he demanded that President Xi Jinping cooperate with an independent international inquiry to find the source of the coronavirus.
Not even the most assiduous of Australia’s spies could have anticipated the extent of the wrath of Xi.
President Joe Biden is also learning fast that if you tinker with foreign policy it can throw up a new set of problems.
Nowhere is this truer than in the Middle East, a cauldron of conflict for the past 50 years. Many will have forgotten the eight-year Iran-Iraq war with more than a million and a half casualties, remembering only Arab-Israeli conflicts or those in which Australian forces played an active part: the two American wars against Iraq, the Syrian conflict, the war in Afghanistan, and the move to prevent Islamic State building a Caliphate in the region. These conflicts and their fallout resulted in the greatest refugee crisis the world has experienced.
Multilateral efforts to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East have all failed. The Biden administration has now made three significant moves:
He has ordered a reset in US relations with the house of Saud, its principal Middle Eastern ally, as a result of bombings by Saudi Arabia of civilians, including children, in the war against neighbouring. The US has also ordered the removal of the Houthis from the US list of terrorist organisations, despite Riyadh’s claims the Houthis have fired Iranian missiles into the Kingdom.
America has offered to join the European Union in talks with Tehran on restoring the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal, supported by President Obama but jettisoned three years ago by Trump.
The US will also actively join all UN efforts to solve both major conflicts, like the war in Yemen, and the wider regional refugee problem.
All this sounds, well, perhaps rather Biden-like: a reminder of a Shakespearean line, “All’s well that ends well.”
As Lyse Doucet, chief international correspondent of the BBC, put it recently,
“Joe Biden’s team is dominated by old hands from the Obama administration. Their biggest challenge is that they personally helped to shape policy in places where it is in far worse shape now. But there are some openings and opportunities in that.”
We have to hope. The problem is that events have moved on, largely thanks to Trump. Not only did he destroy what hopes there were for the Iranian nuclear deal but, in the dying days of his presidency, he showed his colours as a transaction politician by delivering to his staunch friend Benjamin Netanyahu what he most wanted – official recognition of Israel by the most vibrant and richest Gulf country, the United Arab Emirates. Saudi Arabia, which hosted and heralded Trump’s first overseas trip as US president, was set to follow suit.
Today, Netanyahu is uneasy at the prospect of an imminent revival of the Iranian nuclear deal, and Israel’s newfound friends in Abu Dhabi and Dubai even more so. They believe that even if Iran can be persuaded to sign up to a sufficiently watertight deal on nuclear missiles, the ending of sanctions will only enhance Tehran’s ambition to become the regional hegemon.
For Biden and his three European amigos – France, Germany and Britain – together with China and Russia, reviving a tougher Iran nuclear deal is not a ‘slam dunk’. The stand-off between the two sides is easing, with the US now allowing Iranian diplomats to travel within New York.
Iran has withdrawn an imposition on UN nuclear inspections, but feeling in the country is still running high because of the assassination of a number of its eminent scientists. Hard-line opponents of the nuclear deal are also expected to gain ground in June’s parliamentary elections.
Kim Ghattas, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, points out that the region is in a very different place from where it was during the Obama administration. This makes it inevitable that progress will be slow, allowing Vladimir Putin to continue his influence in Syria and Turkey, and Al Assad to restore his grip on power in Damascus.
At the weekend Biden decided to confront head on what had become a big problem in Washington’s relations with Saudi Arabia: the assassination of Amal Khashoggi – journalist, Washington Post columnist and Saudi dissident – that took place inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in 2018. President Trump had classified the report that followed a CIA investigation, ostensibly on security grounds but more realistically for fear of damaging his close relationship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the kingdom’s defence minister and de facto day-to-day leader.
When Biden read the report, he decided its findings should be published in redacted form and that, however unpalatable a task, it was his duty as president to make the views of the United States crystal clear. The report confirmed the Crown Prince had personally approved the operation in Turkey to ‘capture or kill’ Khashoggi.
Ahead of its release on Friday evening Riyadh-time, President Biden called the 85-year-old King Saalman to tell him that he would be ‘resetting’ relations with the kingdom, and expressing the hope that Riyadh would bring to an end its war with Yemen, continue to improve its record on human rights, and continue its longstanding alliance with the US. There is no record of what the King said, but the Saudi foreign ministry later issued a statement affirming its partnership with the US was ‘robust’ and that it looked forward to maintaining the enduring foundations of its strategic partnership’.
There is no direct move to sanction the Crown Prince, a decision defended by secretary of state Tony Blinken, when he met reporters on Friday. He said the US decision to shine a bright light on the issue constituted action in itself and the relationship with Saudi Arabia is more than about one individual.
Blinken has issued a new visa restriction policy — the “Khashoggi Ban” — which is aimed at individuals who work on behalf of foreign governments to target dissidents abroad. Blinken said the US had imposed the ban on 76 Saudis who are “believed to have been engaged in threatening dissidents overseas, including but not limited to the Khashoggi killing”. The US Treasury has also frozen the assets of members of the Crown Prince’s elite detail known to have participated in the killing, as well as members of his Rapid Intervention Force.
Biden’s critics suggest he should do more than name and shame the Crown Prince, but it is a requirement of diplomacy that you have to deal with many leaders with blood on their hands – witness Putin of Russia, and one or two others in G20.
Colin Chapman is a writer, broadcaster and public speaker, who specialises in geopolitics, international economics, and global media issues. He is a former president of AIIA NSW and was appointed a fellow of the AIIA in 2017.
Comments
18 responses to “Spanner in the works: US tinkers with Mid-East foreign policy”
Isn’t it interesting how there is no sanction of the Crown Prince Mbs where the evidence quite clearly suggests that he was responsible for the Khashoggi execution. Yet in the case of Navalny, where the evidence is far from clear as to what occurred, that the US is planning additional sanctions on Russia.
What does appear clear is that US foreign policy, in actions if not so much in rhetoric, will not be much different under Biden than it was under Trump.
I disagree the evidence re Navalny’s poisoning (see Bellingcat) is any less suggestive than that against MBS.
That being said, when has absolute justice ever trumped political expediency in international affairs?
I do agree though that US policy in action under Biden won’t drastically change, though will probably more resemble Obama’s than Trump’s.
Bellingcat? You’ve got to be joking.
I would put more faith in what the Grayzone says:
https://thegrayzone.com/2020/12/27/navalny-poisoning-cia-mi6-discredited-state-funded-bellingcat-play-key-role-in-accusing-russia/
The US in still intent on regime change in Russia. But it ain’t going to happen as long as Putin is around.
What the Grayzone says regarding Navalny’s alleged poisoning by Russian operatives: “While the allegation may prove to be true..”
The principal argument made against Bellingcat is that it receives funding from NATO member states. This may or may not be true, but that’s not an argument against its evidence re Navalny’s poisoning and the implication of Russian (FSB) involvement. Their evidence is no less suggestive than the evidence against MBS, which includes audio and visual evidence from Turkey – a NATO member state.
well, it seems you are more convinced by Bellingcat, than by the caveats mentioned in other comments herein. Bellingcat is more than just funded by NATO, Bellingcat is accused of working hand in glove with the west and NATO. And years of exposure to Bellingcat’s ‘intelligence’ persuades me that Bellingcat is not a reliable source.
The Grayzone’s conditional statement, ‘While the allegations may be true,’ should not be read that the Grayzone believes that the story is true. Other comments in the Grayzone account clearly show otherwise. But they cant prove it, hence the caveat. However the Kremlin had plenty of opportunity to finish Navalny off while he was in hospital in Omsk, and Putin pointedly said that if the Russian state had wanted Navalny dead, he would be dead. Certainly it would not have approved the airlifting of Navalny to Berlin, which they did in fact do.
I’m not convinced beyond doubt either way. Yes NATO and its supporters will likely undermine Putin if and when they can, however this is not a prima facie reason to reject or believe statements and allegations from either side. So my point is that the allegations, specifically the evidence posted by Bellingcat of an FSB agent inadvertently confessing that the operation went awry, remain unanswered. This is an (apparent) recorded first hand account by a Russian agent, not a second hand account by Bellingcat. Collaboration and track record of Bellingcat notwithstanding, I’ve yet to see any credible rebuttal to evidence which provides a high level of detail concerning the event and the specific identities of the persons involved.
Of course if the Russian state wanted Navalny dead at any cost they could almost certainly achieve that, but the method they (allegedly) chose is in keeping with methods covert intelligence agencies use, i.e. highly planned secrecy. If such a plan encountered unexpected difficulty, as has been alleged, it doesn’t follow that they would immediately then resort to unplanned non covert methods. Nor are Putin’s statements particularly instructive. What do you imagine he would say differently if the allegations are correct?
If the allegations were correct, I would expect Putin to say nothing. But why quibble about what Putin’s real intentions might be? He says that if the Russian state wanted Navalny dead, then he would be dead. As you acknowledge, this is true. The natural corollary here is that the Russian state did not want Navalny dead, at least on that occasion. Although they did have him under observation
Navalny was ensconced in Omsk hospital for two days in medical distress, and you are suggesting that this didnt present an almost perfect opportunity to finish him off, if this had always been the intent of Russian authorities. Instead they let him go to Berlin. You may find that credible, I dont. Which means that this entire narrative is likely propaganda, deliberately created in the west to discredit Russia.
I watched a BBC version of Navalny questioning the ‘FSB agent’, and was surprised to find Navalny seeming so well, given that reports at the time were saying he was still very weak but recovering. I was also surprised that he was filming what was merely a fishing expedition which ended up with a ‘confession’ and an audio and filmed record to boot.
And I was not satisfied by the brief explanation given as to how he acquired the information he needed to make that call. But for the rest, it seemed superficially credible. I’d still like to hear from the medical staff at Omsk hospital where Navalny sought help when he fell ill on the plane, from the Novachok ‘put in his underpants’, which presumably the hospital staff removed, at risk to themselves. Still the medical staff insisted there was no poisoning evidenced. And whatever happened to that poisoned water bottle that was such a feature of earlier iterations of this story. However, I do understand why you are not convinced beyond doubt either way.
Here’s another exposé about anti-Russia effort by the British government, BBC and Reuters, and Bellingcat:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtQthwrWhqI&t=3495s
I suppose it’s part of the historical ‘Great Game’ that Britain/US are so adamantly anti-Russia. Makes no sense at all when Russia today is a conservative Christian country with elections that are arguably fairer than American elections!
Bellingcat is a cut out for Western intelligence agencies (or for whoever is willing to pay) and cannot be taken seriously as a source. Elliott Higgins is/was a fellow at the Atlantic Council, i.e. virtually no degree of separation between Bellingcat and NATO.
Both the treating doctors in Russia and Germany did not state that Navalny was poisoned (see the Lancet paper on his treatment). The poisoning claim has been made by German military intelligence. No evidence has been provided, including to Russia, other than statements. No doctor has signed their name to the conclusion that Navalny was poisoned. The failure to provide evidence contravenes the OPCW convention (just as happened with the Skripals) which requires evidence be shared with all parties.
Doctors who have reviewed the results published in the Lancet also state that he has not exhibited signs of nerve agent poisoning. John Helmer has several detailed articles on this.
If he actually was poisoned why would they not provide the actual evidence? Just like if Russia did shoot down MH17 why not just provide the satellite evidence proving so, evidence John Kerry said the day after incident that the US had?
The Navalny saga is just another Western Information Operation against Russia which has flopped.
And we know that German intelligence (just like ASIS/ASIO) is a branch office of the CIA! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Intelligence_Service
According to the Lancet, poisoning was initially diagnosed when he was transferred from Russia to a university hospital in Berlin,
“Severe poisoning with a cholinesterase inhibitor was subsequently diagnosed”
and only later was specified as a particular nerve agent by a German military laboratory. It would hardly be a surprise if [the initial] Russian doctors in Omsk refused (or were dissuaded) to record a conclusion of poisoning.
Regarding Bellingcat, I’m not denying the valid question marks over their origins/backing, however they do have detailed backgrounding of the FSB officers allegedly involved, and they have obtained a comically detailed confession (under false pretense) from one of those officers, the audio and translated transcript of which is freely available on their website.
I’m not suggesting it’s a ‘slam dunk’, what I’m saying is the lack of evidence provided to Russia is matched by a lack of explanation from Russia for the evidence available thus far.
“Not even the most assiduous of Australia’s spies could have anticipated the extent of the wrath of Xi…”. This in relation to China’s reaction to Morrison’s call for coronavirus enquiry.
No, we didn’t need assiduous spies to anticipate the reaction. We needed only an intermediate level of knowledge of China/Asian countries. Knowledge of which currently does not exist in the Australian cabinet!
Agreed. We don’t need spies to tell us that it was a complete lack of intelligence on our part that caused these problems with China.
I doubt that Mr Chapman’s optimism about the Middle East is well founded as it appears that the recent Israeli bombing of Syria along with the US’s similar attack in that country a couple of days ago followed by extremely belligerent statements by the US leadership about Syria that we have in front of us nothing but a continuation of policies initiated by Obama but dumped by Trump, now sadly resurrected in all their blood thirsty glory.
In addition I take exception with the calling of Putin as being one with ‘blood on their hands’, especially as it is the US that is the prime cause of war on this planet and has been for my entire lifetime of 72 years.
On another note, I see that the Pentagon has basically given up on the F35. Will this mean that we will get a full refund on this poor excuse for corporate welfare?
Getting a refund? It was John Howard who signed up to the F35 in 2002 when it was only a sketch on paper. You can’t argue for a refund when you go into something so stupidly.
Perhaps Howard was just happy to sign up. He must have reckoned that we had to pay protection money anyway regardless of whether the thing can fly or not!
The F35, the aerodynamic equivalent of a Ford Edsel.
I follow P&I daily, and the variety of opinions expressed in both the articles and the attached comments allows me to give myself a pass on “bias confirmation” in my attempt to stay abreast of current affairs.
With that in mind, I would be most interested in anything Colin Chapman could offer to substantiate his assertion that President Putin has blood on his hands.
Mohammed bin Salman certainly does. Yemen is awash with it.
Netanyahu certainly does. Palestine is awash with it.
And Putin, the West’s go-to ogre?
Obama definitely has blood on his hands with his approval of the extra-judicial killings by military drones over the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan! Ditto George Bush and Tony Blair with their illegal war in Iraq (with Howard in tow).
Biden as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee is on record as having argued strongly for the Iraq war to proceed. He also arguably has blood on his hands!