Facebook Feed

2 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
Purim Guide for the Perplexed 2023: bit.ly/3ZdlxHY ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

2 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
אתגר מרכזי לביטחון לאומי: bit.ly/3xkSwh1 ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

2 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
US-sponsored anti-Israel UN Security Council statement - acumen: bit.ly/3lVqpCM ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

2 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
bit.ly/3xHPCDc הסכמי אברהם – אינטרס ערבי, אמריקאי וישראלי: ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

President Biden’s Middle East Policy

Disengagement from the Middle East?

The Middle East is situated between Europe, Asia and Africa, and between the Mediterranean, Red Sea, Indian Ocean, Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf.

President Biden wishes to disengage from the Middle East, but the Middle East does not intend to disengage from the US.

The US is perceived by rogue Middle East entities as “The Great Satan” and the mega-obstacle on their way to achieve their mega-goal: bringing the West to submission, militarily, culturally and religiously. This mega-goal has been deeply-rooted since the 7th century, independent of US policies.

Isolation is not a realistic option in the increasingly globalized village, where rogue Middle East regimes are engaged in the proliferation of terrorism, non-conventional military technologies and drug trafficking around the globe. Their reach extends all the way to the American continent, impacting the US homeland security.

Will the US lead – or follow – the engagement process?  Will the engagement with rogue Middle East entities be conducted mostly around the US – or the Middle East – “end zone”?

The Biden team’s track record

President Biden’s Middle East policy reflects the worldview of his top foreign policy and national security team, most notably Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, who has been President Biden’s most influential advisor since 2002-2008 (similar to Secretary Baker’s influence on President Bush), when Blinken was the Democratic Staff Director on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Other leading members of the team are Jake Sullivan, the National Security Advisor, William Burns, the CIA Director and Avril Haines, the Director of National Intelligence. They – like Blinken – played a key role in shaping President Obama’s Middle East policy.

For instance, they were instrumental in carving the 2015 nuclear accord with Iran (JCPOA), which followed the US embrace of Iran’s Ayatollahs (Shiite terrorism), while demoting the stature of the pro-US Saudis, the UAE and Bahrain.  This has intensified the existential threat to these regimes, injuring the US’ strategic reliability, and driving its traditional Arab allies closer to China and Russia.

In 2009-2012, they supported the ascension to power of Egypt’s anti-Western Muslim Brotherhood (Sunni terrorism), while turning their backs on the pro-US President Mubarak.

They cuddled the Palestinians, pressured Israel, and promoted the establishment of a Palestinian state, disregarding the Palestinian track record, which has made the Palestinians the role model of intra-Arab subversion, terrorism and ingratitude.

In addition, the Biden team participated in the orchestration of the 2011 US-led military offensive against Qadhafi, which aimed to topple Qadhafi for slaughtering his opponents and squashing human rights. However, the demise (lynching) of Qadhafi transformed Libya into a regional and global platform of Islamic terrorism and ruthless violations of human rights, igniting a series of Libyan civil wars with Russian, Turkish, Egyptian, Emirati, Saudi, Qatari, French and Italian military involvement.

The Biden team current performance

The Biden team assumes that Islamic terrorism (e.g., Iran’s Ayatollahs, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Hamas, PLO, Houthis) is driven by despair, which must be addressed and remedied, in order to terminate terrorism. They ignore the fact that Islamic terrorism has been driven – since the 7th century – not by despair, but by deeply-rooted, intolerant, fanatic and megalomaniacal anti-Western ideologies, irrespective of Western and Israeli policies.

Similarly, Palestinian hate-education and the Palestinian overall track record clarify that Palestinian terrorism has preceded Israel’s 1967 reunification of Jerusalem and return to Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). It has never been driven by the size – but the elimination – of the Jewish State.

The Biden team has attempted to base its Middle East policy on the noble values of human rights and democracy, which are inconsistent with the Arab Middle East. In fact, the choice facing the US is not between pro-US and anti-US human rights-abiding Arab regimes, but between pro-US and anti-US human rights-violating Arab regimes.

Secretary Blinken and National Security Advisor Sullivan have advocated shifting resources from military to diplomacy.  They have highlighted multilateralism over unilateral US national security action, urging enhanced coordination with Europe (which prefers appeasement in the face of rogue regimes), the UN and international organizations (which are dominated by anti-US non-democratic countries).

The pursuit of multilateralism and diplomacy has occasionally undermined the US war on terrorism, as evidenced by the multilateral JCPOA.  It provided Iran’s Ayatollahs with $150bn and removal of the sanctions, which generated an unprecedent tailwind to Iranian wars (in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Afghanistan), regional and global terrorism (from Thailand through Europe and Africa to South and Central America), domestic repression and development and the proliferation of ballistic missile technologies.

Furthermore, the resumption of the annual US foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority is not preconditioned upon the termination of monthly allowances to families of terrorists, hate-education, incitement, and the idolizing of suicide-bombers.  Moreover, the restoration of the annual US foreign aid to UNRWA does not require an end to the funding of Palestinian hate-education, nor does it require shifting gears from perpetuating – to resolving – the status of Palestinian refugees, as is practiced by the UN High Commissioner on Refugees.

President Biden’s policy on Iran

President Biden’s determination to reembrace Iran’s Ayatollahs and rejoin the JCPOA has been demonstrated by the appointment of Rob Malley to be the Special Envoy for Iran. Malley was the key behind-the-scene negotiator of the 2015 JCPOA, a personal friend of Secretary Blinken, with open channels to Iran’s Ayatollahs, Hezbollah, Hamas and PLO terrorists.

Secretary Blinken, Malley and their colleagues have downplayed Iran’s present and past track record.  They are preoccupied with assessments about Iran’s future track record. They have whitewashed Iran’s military involvement in Yemen’s civil war on the side of Houthi Shiite terrorists, and Iran’s aim to topple the Saudi regime and control the critical straits of Bab-el-Mandeb, which is vital to global trade and regional and global military balance. While the US intensifies pressure on Saudi Arabia to withdraw from Yemen, it delisted the Houthis from the list of terrorist organizations, which triggered an intensified Iranian/Houthi bombing of Saudi cities and oil facilities.

The Biden team assumes that a dramatic financial/diplomatic bonanza would incentivize Iran’s Ayatollahs to abandon their fanatic vision, which has guided them – including their education system – since the 1978/79 revolution. The Biden team expects such a bonanza to alter the nature of the Ayatollahs, convincing them to accept peaceful-coexistence and power-sharing with their Sunni Arab neighbors. Moreover, the Biden team waived the regime-change option, which has crippled the bargaining position of the US, violating a fundamental rule of negotiation with rogue entities: Bury the hatchet, but leave the handle sticking out.

The Progressive effect

President Biden’s Middle East policy has also been impacted by the growing clout of Progressive Democrats, who are determined to shift resources from national security and foreign policy to the domestic arena.  They advocate a Third World-oriented policy, while ignoring and oversimplifying the 14-century-old unpredictable, violent, despotic and non-peaceful intra-Arab and intra-Muslim reality.  Thus, they criticize pro-Western entities such as Israel, ignoring Israel’s historic and moral track record and Israel’s contribution to the US’ economy and defense, which outweigh foreign aid. At the same time, they embrace anti-Western rogue entities such as Iran’s Ayatollahs, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, irrespective of their fanatic and despotic core ideology and intra-Muslim/intra-Arab terroristic track record.

Moreover, the “progressives” have misperceived the tectonic eruptions on the Arab Street as if it reflected an “Arab Spring,” a pursuit of self-determination, human rights, national liberation and democracy. In fact, it has been an Arab Tsunami; an extension of the intrinsic Middle East violence, hate-education, terrorism, repression and demonic visions.

In conclusion

Will President Biden repeat – or avoid – past critical mistakes?

Will President Biden yield to – or defy – the Progressive pressure?

Will President Biden disengage from the non-disengaging Middle East?

Support Appreciated




The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb

The Abraham Accords – the US, Arab interests and Israel

Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan believe that the expansion of the Abraham Accords, the enhancement of Israel-Saudi defense and commercial cooperation and the conclusion of an Israel-Saudi Arabia peace accord are preconditioned upon major Israeli concessions to the Palestinian Authority.

Is such a belief consistent with Middle East reality?

Arab interests

*The signing of the Abraham Accords, and the role played by Saudi Arabia as a critical engine of the accords, were driven by the national security, economic and diplomatic interests of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and the Sudan.

*The Arab interest in peace accords with Israel was not triggered by the realization that the Jewish State was genuinely seeking peaceful-coexistence, nor by a departure from the fundamental tenets of Islam. It was motivated by the assessment that critical concerns of the respective Arab countries would be effectively-served by Israel’s advanced military (Qualitative Military Edge), technological and diplomatic capabilities in the face of mutual and lethal enemies, such as Iran’s Ayatollahs and Muslim Brotherhood terrorism.

*Saudi Arabia and the six Arab peace partners of Israel (including Egypt and Jordan) are aware that the Middle East resembles a volcano, which occasionally releases explosive lava – domestically and/or regionally – in an unpredictable manner, as evidenced by the 1,400-year-old stormy intra-Arab/Muslim relations, and recently demonstrated by the Arab Tsunami, which erupted in 2011 and still rages.

They wish to minimize the impact of rogue regimes, and therefore are apprehensive about the nature of the proposed Palestinian state, in view of the rogue Palestinian inter-Arab track record, which has transformed Palestinians into an intra-Arab role model of subversion, terrorism, treachery and ingratitude.

*They are anxious about the erosion of the US posture of deterrence, which is their most critical component of national security, and alarmed about the 43-year-old US diplomatic option toward Iran’s Ayatollahs, which has bolstered the Ayatollahs’ terroristic, drug trafficking and ballistic capabilities. They are also concerned about the US’ embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the largest Sunni terrorist entity with religious, educational, welfare and political branches. And, they are aware of the ineffectiveness of NATO (No Action Talk Only?), the European vacillation, and the vulnerability of all other Arab countries.

Israel’s role

*Saudi Arabia and the Arab partners to peace accords with Israel feel the machetes of the Ayatollahs and the Moslem Brotherhood at their throats. They consider Israel as the most reliable “life insurance agent” in the region.  They view Israel as the most effective US force-multiplier in the Middle East, and appreciate Israel’s proven posture of deterrence; flexing its military muscles against Iran’s Ayatollahs in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran itself and against Palestinian and Hezbollah terrorism. They respect Israel’s unique counter-terrorism intelligence and training capabilities, and its game-changing military and counter-terrorism battle tactics and technologies.

*The Arab view of Israel as a reliable partner on “a rainy day” has been bolstered by Israel’s willingness to defy US pressure, when it comes to Israel’s most critical national security and historic credos (e.g., Iran, Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria).  In addition, Saudi Arabia and Israel’s peace-partners aim to leverage Israel’s good-standing among most Americans – and therefore among most Senators and House Representatives – as a venue to enhance their military, commercial and diplomatic ties with the US.

*Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain are preoccupied with the challenge of economic diversification, realizing that they are overly-reliant on oil and natural gas, which are exposed to price-volatility, depletion and could be replaced by emerging cleaner and more cost-effective energy.

Thus, they consider Israel’s ground-breaking technologies as a most effective vehicle to diversify their economy, create more jobs in non-energy sectors, and establish a base for alternative sources of national income, while bolstering homeland and national security.

*The Abraham Accords – as well as Israel’s peace accords with Egypt and Jordan – and the unprecedented expansion of defense and commercial cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Israel, demonstrate that critical Arab national security interests may supersede fundamental tenets of Islam, such as the 1,400-year-old rejection of any “infidel” sovereignty in “the abode of Islam.”  Moreover, critical national security interests may lead to a dramatic moderation of the (Arab) education system, which is the most authentic reflection of one’s vision and policies.

Thus, contrary to the Palestinian Authority, the United Arab Emirates has uprooted hate-education curriculum, replacing it with pro-Israel/Jewish curriculum.

Abraham Accords’ durability

*The success of the Abraham Accords was a result of avoiding the systematic mistakes committed by the US State Department. The latter has produced a litany of failed peace proposals, centered on the Palestinian issue, while the Abraham accords bypassed the Palestinian issue, avoiding a Palestinian veto, and focusing on Arab interests. Therefore, the durability of the Abraham Accords depends on the interests of the respective Arab countries, and not on the Palestinian issue, which is not a top priority for any Arab country.

*The durability of the Abraham Accords depends on the stability of the individual Arab countries and the Middle East at-large.

*The Abraham Accord have yielded initial and unprecedented signs of moderation, modernity and peaceful coexistence, which requires the US to support the respective pro-US Arab regimes, rather than pressuring them (e.g., Saudi Arabia and the UAE).

*However, one should not ignore the grave threats to the durability of the accords, posed by the volcanic nature of the unstable, highly-fragmented, unpredictable, violently intolerant, non-democratic and tenuous Middle East (as related to intra-Arab relations!).  These inherent threats would be dramatically alleviated by a resolute US support.

*A major threat to the Abraham Accord is the tenuous nature of most Arab regimes in the Middle East, which yields tenuous policies and tenuous accords. For example, in addition to the Arab Tsunami of 2010 (which is still raging on the Arab Street), non-ballot regime-change occurred (with a dramatic change of policy) in Egypt (2013, 2012, 1952), Iran (1979, 1953), Iraq (2003, 1968, 1963-twice, 1958), Libya (2011, 1969), Yemen (a civil war since the ’90s, 1990, 1962), etc.

*Regional stability, the Abraham Accords and US interests would be undermined by the proposed Palestinian state west of the Jordan River (bearing in mind the intra-Arab Palestinian track record). It would topple the pro-US Hashemite regime east of the River; transforming Jordan into another platform of regional and global Islamic terrorism, similar to Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen; triggering a domino scenario, which would threaten every pro-US Arab oil-producing country in the Arabian Peninsula; yielding a robust tailwind to Iran’s Ayatollahs, Russia and China and a major headwind to the US.

*While Middle East reality defines policies and accords as variable components of national security, the topography and geography of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and the Golan Heights are fixed components of Israel’s minimal security requirements in the reality of the non-Western Middle East. Israel’s fixed components of national security have secured its survival, and have dramatically enhanced its posture of deterrence. They transformed the Jewish State into a unique force and dollar multiplier for the US.

*The more durable the Abraham Accords and the more robust Israel’s posture of deterrence, the more stable the pro-US Arab regimes and the Middle East at-large; the more deterred are anti-US rogue regimes; the less potent are Middle Eastern epicenters of anti-US terrorism and drug trafficking; the more bolstered is the US global posture and the weaker is the posture of the US’ enemies and adversaries.

*Would the Arab regimes of the Abraham Accords precondition their critical ties with Israel upon Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, which they view as a rogue element? Would they sacrifice their national security and economic interests on the altar of the Palestinian issue? Would they cut off their nose to spite their face?

The fact that these Arab regimes concluded the Abraham Accords without preconditioning it upon Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, and that they limit their support of the Palestinians to talk, rather than walk, provides an answer to these three questions.

Support Appreciated






The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb