President Biden’s trip reminded me of Henry Kissinger and unlike his traveling diplomacy, nothing substantial came out of the other, so much so that he almost immediately disappeared as news, since there was nothing substantial, beyond the rhetoric of the governments.
I was angry with Kissinger for many years for his responsibility in creating the conditions for the 1973 coup in Chile, as well as when it was learned that he evaded a court summons in France and the trials of relatives of victims in the United States itself. . Later I understood that it was also a time of the cold war and I ended up reconciling myself with his monumental book on China. Today I recognize him the same as many, that is, his great knowledge of history and his commitment to principles of realism, which at 99 years of age are still valid in his advice on Russia or the Middle East.
The reason may or may not be found, but his vision is needed in world politics, his vision of the State, of the strategic continuity of a power, of blue lines to navigate and red lines that must not be crossed. Kissinger is a reminder that what is still the first power cannot conduct its foreign policy through either goodwill or by starting from its responsibilities, perhaps Obama in one case and Trump in the other. I remembered his teachings during President Biden’s journey, since I could not answer the question that he justified that trip, nor could I locate who would answer it, since there was nothing that could not be achieved without leaving Washington.
Beyond what is said about his health, Biden’s is striking since, in more than four decades in the front line as a senator and vice president, he has gone many times to Israel and Saudi Arabia, although Lapid and Bin Salman are relatively new to him. In addition, we are talking about countries that have been the main US allies in the region since the 1950s in the case of Saudi Arabia, and since the 6-day war (1967) in the case of Israel.
Israel’s government is interim and if the polls are to be believed, by the end of the year Netanyahu could govern again, albeit precariously without a clear majority, and other polls show that, in November, Biden could face an electoral result that would leave in a minority in Congress and as a president who is not going for re-election. Therefore, everyone needed to announce something, important or not, starting with the Saudi, called a murderer.
The announcement of the two islands in the Red Sea that face the exit of two ports, one from Jordan and the other from Israel, whose situation from the military point of view does not change for Israel, since there was an unwritten agreement since Two years ago. For the rest, beyond the political-communicational effect, the most favored country in legal terms is Egypt.
The same can be said of Biden’s direct trip from Israel to Saudi Arabia, since a similar journey had been made alone without prior announcement by political, military and intelligence leaders from Tel Aviv, it has even been known later by “transcended” delivered to media outlets both in the kingdom and in Israel. Good thing it happened, but calling them “historic” is at least a gross exaggeration.
And just like the day before, there will be no formal diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and any Israeli government, whether or not it has an Arab presence, which will only come when Israel reaches an agreement for the creation of an independent Palestinian state. The reason is that, unlike the minor kingdoms of the Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia cannot proceed otherwise, since it is the Sunni rival of Iranian Shia for the leadership of the entire Muslim world. But at the same time, and for a few years now, there have been ever closer relations on security, intelligence and military issues. The reason is one, they have a common enemy called Iran, which seeks to destroy both and the Arab world looks to Israel for the necessary military will of an ally, which it no longer observes in the White House. Otherwise, as an example,
There was, and hardly could be, any change in the relationship on the ground between Israel and the Palestinians, so much so that as soon as he left Israeli territory, Hamas fired him by firing four rockets. If the Palestinian protests showed anything to the visit, it is the enormous loneliness of the aging leadership in Ramallah, and the lack of interlocutors to negotiate peace, since it must be remembered that Israel’s great bet in Oslo was for Arafat as the only that he could have the capacity to reach agreements, which did not happen, and on the contrary, after the failure at Camp David (reading Clinton’s memoirs about his responsibility is recommended), Arafat ordered one last Intifada, a situation that underwent modification until his death, and from which, and as a response to many attacks, the current Wall is still visible,
The current reality is marked by a kind of distancing or exhaustion of several Arab countries with the issue or at least the Palestinian leadership (also visible in Turkey’s rapprochement with Israel), the novelty of an Islamist party supporting a Jewish government in Israel, and above all, the belated recognition of the Abrahamic Covenants, which were indeed the most significant advance in the Middle East since Rabin and Peres’ handshake with Arafat on the Clinton White House lawn.
That element must have been difficult for Biden, since it meant acknowledging an achievement of Trump, which in other conditions could have been material for a Nobel Prize, and only the ex-president’s personality of excesses made him toxic for the Norwegians.
So what is behind Biden’s trip? A single element, the need for oil after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and also the sanctions on Moscow. It must have been painful for a sitting president of the USA to meet with the Saudi regent, after having said something that is proven, such as his involvement in the horrific murder of journalist Jamal Khashogi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. It is also filmed.
It must have been difficult, especially because of the campaign announcements to transform Bin Selman into an international “pariah”. With the invasion there was a change of priorities, and apparently Washington realized when neither Riyadh nor Abu Dhabi answered the phone, so much so that Macron’s intervention had to be requested, and on TV it has been shown when he communicated the response received that there was no oil available and that the only possibility was for the US to produce more, which cannot be done, since it would mean a deep division in the Democratic Party, due to the ideological predominance of the green economy and the electoral promise of decrease of fossil fuels, even going so far as to prefer negotiating with Maduro.
Does the trip signify a return to the preference for realism in US foreign policy? Not necessarily, since today it does not depend on gestures, even if they are greetings and rapprochement, but on the real elephant in the glassware, which is none other than Iran and its atomic bomb, which causes real terror among those who have no way of defending themselves, that is, the Sunni Arab world and who, if it can defend itself and also attack like Israel, has received messages of destruction over and over again from Tehran.
The truth is that actions and statements by the United States have created realities and the geopolitics of the region have changed, and the best evidence is that Saudi Arabia has been talking with Iran and that Israel has accepted the importance of Russia, so they have had a special relationship in the Syrian civil war, and as it is mutually advantageous, there has been virtual neutrality today towards the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
There was no change with the trip and in a polarized United States, there does not seem to be room today for a return to bipartisan politics, to the continuity of decisions between governments of different parties, and to the basic consensus expected in a great power.
In this context, someone with the trajectory of Biden does not seem to make a difference, and in a country where next year the needle will return to the same alternatives of 2016 and 2020, for and against Trump, there will be elements similar to the Nixon period ie, deep political differences and cultural wars, but at least in foreign policy, including the Middle East, there will be no room for the strategic sense of a Henry Kissinger.
Neither does someone of his level appear to help order and predict international politics.
“The opinions published here are the sole responsibility of their author.”
