What Does Joe Biden's State of the Union Address Mean for the Middle East?

What Does Joe Biden's State of the Union Address Mean for the Middle East?

The United States needs a clear and unmoving policy towards Iran that recognizes that Tehran’s strategic goals—driving America from the Middle East and shattering Israel’s democracy—are fundamentally antithetical to U.S. interests.

 

President Joseph Biden delivered a strong State of the Union address last night, drawing sharp contrasts with former President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans.

Opening with a forceful defense of America’s NATO allies, Biden called on Congress to approve more funding for Ukraine’s defense against Russian invasion. Biden took Americans back to 1941 when the United States was about to enter World War II and had to summon the political will to rebuild its armed forces.

 

Today presents a similar moment and similar test. The president repeatedly reminded Americans that “history watches” how the nation responds to crises. “Not since President Lincoln and the Civil War have our freedom and democracy been under attack at home like they are today,” Biden said.

“What makes our moment rare is that freedom and democracy are under attack simultaneously at home and abroad.”

It was a critical moment for Biden, who is working hard to advance his foreign and domestic agenda through a divided Congress.

Biden's most significant announcement came near the end of his speech when he confirmed that the U.S. military would establish a “temporary Mediterranean pier on the coast of Gaza” to receive shipments of water, food, and medicine.

Biden promised the mission would not involve deploying U.S. troops on the ground while allowing life-saving supplies to flow into Gaza.

While reiterating his belief in Israel's right to defend itself against Hamas, Biden condemned the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. “To Israel, I say this: humanitarian aid cannot be a secondary consideration or a bargaining chip. Protecting and saving innocent lives must be a priority,” he said. “As we look to the future, the only real solution to the situation is a two-state solution over time.”

Washington and its Arab partners realize that amid the traumatic events since October 7, Israelis and Palestinians are in no mood to consider a peace deal now or soon. Likewise, they recognize that the Palestinian Authority, undermined by successive Netanyahu governments and despised by its voters for its incompetence and corruption, is not up to the task of governing Gaza.

But in the modern Middle East, political vacuums still invite violence and terrorism. We, therefore, need a realistic and, above all, pragmatic solution that can withstand the unrest that will inevitably follow the war.

Since even a “revitalized” Palestinian Authority, as advocated by the White House, could not legitimately govern Gaza after the war without the approval of Hamas. Even with the complete destruction of Hamas’ strategic assets, the radical ideology will remain, and Iran will continue to support whatever political form it takes.

 

In short, Iran’s grip on Gaza will remain, no matter how many bombs are dropped. Loosening that grip is America’s biggest challenge. The United States needs a clear and unmoving policy towards Iran that recognizes that Tehran’s strategic goals—driving America from the Middle East and shattering Israel’s democracy—are fundamentally antithetical to U.S. interests. 

Thomas Friedman described it wonderfully in the New York Times: “We should have no illusions about the risks because the shadow war playing out there could come screaming out of the shadows at any moment.”

Finally, we need a realistic and courageous American approach that recognizes that the Palestinians need an alternative to Hamas’ ideology and the perpetual conflict it feeds. That alternative must provide real hope for jobs, housing, schools, and hospitals. Out of Palestinian prosperity will come lasting peace that ensures security and dignity for Israelis and Palestinians.

Ahmed Charai is the Publisher of Jerusalem Strategic Tribune and serves on the boards of directors of the Atlantic Council, the International Crisis Group, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and the Center for the National Interest.

Image: Shutterstock.com.