And eight. I am referring to the count of American airstrikes on Houthi bases from which missiles are fired at merchant ships in the Red Sea.
Slowly but surely, America is sliding toward a mini-war in the Middle East: exactly what Joe Biden vowed never to do again when he (unfortunately) withdrew from Afghanistan in the summer of 2021. He does this in the worst possible situation from a political perspective: just over nine months before an election, with polls showing him behind Donald Trump, a public opinion that is blown by the winds of isolationism and division (also) regarding the the Middle East is afflicted. America's enemies know this, and the timing of their attacks embodies this perception of U.S. weakness.
No, US presidents don't start wars to win elections
From the election date onwards, a still widespread anti-American legend must be debunked. “American presidents start wars to win elections” is an old stereotype without confirmation in historical reality. It's easier to find evidence to the contrary, for example some wars that have destroyed presidents, like Vietnam for Lyndon Johnson. Even a “perfect” conflict with few American casualties and a quick victory, such as the first Gulf War (1991) to liberate Kuwait in which Saddam Hussein invaded, was followed by George Bush senior's electoral defeat, although it was viewed by experts as a military-diplomatic masterpiece against Bill Clinton in 1992. The idea that his son George W. Bush Jr. was re-elected in 2004 thanks to the second Iraq War was spread by the Democrats to cover up the inadequacy of their candidate John Kerry.
The isolation wind
While there is generally no evidence that wars help win elections, the opposite is much more likely in the current political atmosphere: American public opinion is largely disaffected, disaffected, or even hostile toward the global role of the United States.
Trump's isolationism is more in keeping with the mood of the times. This ties Biden's hands and limits his freedom of action. Others can constantly provoke him, he must moderate his responses. It was seen in Ukraine. Having cleared the ideological fog of the pseudo-pacifist demonstrations that blamed NATO for this war, it is now clear that the West's, and especially America's, response to Putin has always been one of extreme caution. Especially in the early stages of the war, Putin or some of his associates threatened the use of nuclear weapons and World War III every other day. Biden and the other NATO leaders did exactly the opposite: They indicated that they would never go directly into the field. Asymmetric War: One of the two combatants declares that he is ready for anything, including the apocalypse; the other immediately admits that he will never fight (the paradox is that the protests of the “pacifists” are directed against the second).
Why not in Ukraine and yes in the Middle East?
But then why the Middle East? While Biden immediately declared in Ukraine – on the eve of the invasion – that no American soldier would be involved, after the Hamas massacre on October 7th, he immediately deployed a fleet off the coast of Lebanon to contain Hezbollah.
As for the Red Sea, Americans are fighting every day now. Even without ground troops, initially only with air and sea attacks. Biden can hope that this self-defense operation – launched because the Houthis have already attacked around fifty merchant ships in the Red Sea – remains limited and achieves rapid success. We all hope so, given the impact on global trade and the Italian economy.
There is a risk that the war will spiral out of control
However, these conflicts can always get out of control. The Houthis may prove to be a more stubborn and insidious enemy than expected (the Saudis fought them for nine years without getting over it).
Iran may have more strikes in store against America as part of its strategy of destabilization and blackmail. But unlike in Ukraine, where Biden faced neither the temptation nor the real danger of being drawn in, American forces are deployed in the Middle East. Why this “Arab curse”?
The Renegade Retreat
After the conflicts of 1991 in Iraq, 2001 in Afghanistan and again in 2003 in Iraq, it seemed as if the US ruling class had decided once and for all: never again. Two factors led to the withdrawal. The first reason is the energy self-sufficiency of the United States, which has refrained from importing Arab oil for over a decade. The second is China.
Since Obama's first presidency, a “pivot to Asia” has been theorized, the need for America to focus its attention and resources on its only rival in size, the People's Republic. When Biden was Obama's vice president, he fully shared the idea of strategically repositioning America, stopping wasting energy on too many fronts and focusing on the challenge that will matter in the long term. As Obama's deputy, Biden was one of the pioneers in calling for an early withdrawal from Afghanistan. Then Trump decided it and Biden implemented it in the worst possible way. But the logic was always the same: never get stuck in the Middle East again. Is it easier said, done? Why did Biden return to campaign where he vowed not to?
Why did Biden fall into the trap?
The explanations can all be traced back to the theme of “legacy” or imperial inheritance. I use the terms “empire” and “imperial” with some freedom, knowing that the American empire is not a classic empire (in the sense that, for example, Russia and China with their internal colonies still are). Nevertheless, since 1945, America has exercised a hegemonic role in many parts of the world, although not all.
This role cannot be explained by a narrowly economic vision. A leading nation does not act solely on the basis of narrow economic interests. Here's an example: America no longer needs Arab oil, but its European and Asian allies do. A severe crisis in the Red Sea would have serious implications for the economic security of Europe, Japan, South Korea and all energy importers from the Gulf and surrounding areas. A leading country like America knows that its own well-being and security are stronger when its allies are also well. Additionally, an energy shock in the Middle East would still impact the United States. American oil and gas are produced, refined and distributed by private companies that have the freedom to sell energy worldwide; their prices are linked to global markets. After all, a superpower like America has long learned that geopolitics – like physics – does not tolerate a vacuum. If the US military were to withdraw from the Middle East, sooner or later someone else would fill the void.
Given the ignorance of Europeans – whose voters do not understand the urgency of increasing military spending – it is almost certain that China, Russia and Iran, in various combinations, would fill the void.
Perhaps America can protect its own vital interests and guarantee its own security without acting as a world policeman. According to the isolationists, this would be done better and at a lower cost. He is less likely to be able to live in peace if another gendarme appears in the world to set the rules and prices of his protection. After all, there is no other conflict on the planet that could exacerbate and exacerbate the internal divisions in American society as much as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ukraine caused only a fraction of the lacerations visible in Gaza today. This is also part of the “legacy” factor. That's why the curse of the Middle East strikes again, and at its worst moment comes a president who has vowed never to fall for it again.
January 23, 2024, 2:51 p.m. – modified on January 23, 2024 | 2:52 p.m
© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED