Listen to the article
The Florida, an American submarine equipped with Tomahawk missiles that just joined the US Navy fleet patrolling the region is no less than “4000 tons of communications!” These are the words of a French commentator according to whom this same submersible could very well go on the same offensive or defensive missions in the frozen waters of the North Atlantic, or the warmer waters of the Indian Ocean. The American fleet – that gets stronger by the day and is fronted by the flagship vessel USS Dwight D. Eisenhower – did not enter in the order of battle only to defend the State of Israel. In fact, these intimidating reinforcements were decided on urgently, in order to mend the wounds generated by the deplorable American foreign policies in the Middle East.
This public fall from grace could be attributed to Biden, Blinken, the State Department, or even the aberrant policies of Netanyahu, which reminds us Lebanese of the event involving the USS New Jersey in 1984. At that time, the Reagan administration – that spared no effort towards rehabilitating Lebanese public and military institutions, as if to foster peace talks with the neighbor in the South – ended up admitting that its policy failed. It would withdraw, humiliated, allowing Lebanon’s internal conflict to develop further, massacre after massacre.
The current American administration possibly realizes that the US has yet again failed, following the fiasco of October 7 and its own sudden turnaround. Only this time, Uncle Ben will have to deploy in the region again, and potentially intervene militarily alongside Israel, if he hasn’t already.
What About the Abraham Accords?
Amidst all the devastation and turmoil, who still believes in the perennity of the Abraham Accords? And which Arab state would dare bring them forth? The irony lies in the fact that these same accords were signed at the White House in 2020, between Israel on one side, and Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates on the other, with the American president as witness. They were followed by additional conventions signed by Sudan and Morocco. For the United States, the initiative was a success that signified a metaphoric “truce” between sunni Arab states and shiite Iran, and highlighted Israel’s ability to put the final nail in the coffin when it comes to the two state solution. And Saudi Arabia would join the parade.
According to certain observers, the solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict was within reach. As a matter of fact, only a month ago, the American administration could go as far as to believe that it was one small step away from an even bigger victory, one that would materialize in the form of a formal regional realignment under its auspices. After all, Saudi Arabia did almost recognize Israel, provided that the hebrew state presents guarantees pertaining to the safety of Palestinians. In the eyes of the decision makers in Washington, this policy could finally lead to “the last phase of the post-Iraq war strategy, begun under Barack Obama, then followed upon by Donald Trump who would have rallied all of the United States, their Arab allies, and Israel, against Iran and its cronies.” Evidently, the superhero complex-ridden strategists simply refused to believe that normalization was far from popular among the people of the concerned Arab states.
Needless to say, all the other projects – sketchy for the most part – came to an abrupt end when Hamas violently expressed its disagreement on October 7! Whether they are war specialists or mediators, the flummoxed strategists in question must be crying over this last missed opportunity.
And the Rule-based International Order?
American policymakers can no longer boast about having promoted the rule-based international order – a system that rests upon regulations established by supposedly liberal countries and draws a clear distinction between Western democracies and authoritarian regimes like China and Iran. The Americans can no longer express their pride now, especially after Israel’s disproportionate reaction to Hamas’ aggression: how can one condemn Russia’s indiscriminate shelling of Ukraine and turn a blind eye to the relentless bombings in Gaza? Even King Abdallah of Jordan, Israel’s loyal ally, stood up against these unbearable acts and reminded everyone that any other country would have been shunned by the international community for having targeted civilian infrastructure, imposed a food blockade, and the list goes on… In his outrage, King Abdallah even concluded that “international law would lose all its value if applied in selective fashion.”
Now, matters have simply become untenable for Arab leaders who have long endorsed, if grudgingly, Washington’s pro-Israeli policy. All things considered, the heads of state in the MENA region have public opinion to take into account; their personal legitimacy depends on it, and they are now facing significant perils.
The American fleet was not only positioned as a demonstration of strength to defend Israel, as White House spokespersons pretend. In July 1958, following a coup in Iraq, the marines of the sixth fleet landed on the shores of Beirut as British troops flew to Jordan to support the regimes in place then. Today also, heavily armed American warships have been mobilized to come to the rescue of potentially crumbling Arab regimes tempted by normalization.
Let us imagine an uprising in the West Bank, an Intifada of sorts, repressed violently. Such an event could easily alter the fate of Arab dictators.
