Joe Biden’s administration seems to be embracing a shaky and uncertain posture in Middle Eastern politics yet again, as signs of potential defensive strategies emerge. The burning question these days centers around possible retaliation from Iran following actions taken by Israel. Fears abound that this response may not stop at Israel’s doorstep but extend all the way to American forces.
In a recent conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Biden reportedly put on the table certain prospects. These new ‘defensive’ strategies might include additional U.S. military deployments, purportedly in Israel’s defense. The president’s rhetoric is so overflowing with war words that one wonders why a platform of peace and cohesion is seemingly absent.
Insiders suggest ongoing discussions between the Pentagon and the U.S. Central Command on necessary adjustments in American force posture in this sensitive region. Yet unsurprisingly, as is often the case with the Biden Administration, no concrete decision had been reached by the week’s end. Critics question whether indecision will turn out to be the Achilles heel in this unfolding situation.
The USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group recently carries out operations within the Gulf of Oman. Amid the political turmoil, it wouldn’t be unimaginable for the group, which comprises warships and destroyers, to navigate towards the Gulf of Aden or Red Sea. Throughout these regions, intercepts of Houthi launches have been played out by Navy warships.
Meanwhile, in the Mediterranean Sea, the USS Wasp amphibious assault ship, in conjunction with several coterie Navy vessels, maintains its presence. However, this defensive stance on international waters becomes questionable under Biden’s administration that seems to lack a clear and comprehensive strategy against rapidly evolving geopolitical scenarios.
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, a hardliner faction within the region, promised severe retaliation following the assassination against Israel. Its wordings suggest a scenario that is not only harsh but also painful. It serves to portray the Biden Administration’s inability to prevent volatile situations from escalating.
Ironic as it sounds, the aftermath of the killing of Haniyeh might include Iranian-backed militias launching attacks on U.S. forces. This is from Syria to Iraq, various regions where U.S. forces concentrate. It belies the Biden Administration’s purported goal of peace, that our forces even need to face such dangers on contested ground.
For an extended period, these militias have incessantly targeted U.S. forces in the Middle East. However, the situation appeared calm after a drone attack neutralized three U.S. service members in Jordan earlier in the year. Now, speculations are rife that Iran could trigger these groups into action once more, casting a grim shadow over Biden’s reign.
The situation has become even more tense with bellicose statements by Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader. After Israel’s elimination of a top commander in Beirut, Nasrallah’s insinuations about a coordinated strike on Israel seems to amplify the potential for conflict. All these combine to paint an intensely negative picture of Biden’s disastrous foreign policy.
Nasrallah’s words bring further uncertainty, indicating that Israel’s enemies might launch an assault separately, or even in a coordinated fashion. The implicit threat in these words cast ominous clouds over Biden’s already lackluster handling of the geopolitics in the Middle East.
Amidst all these, the U.S. still maintains a pious belief that an all-out war is not on the cards. This is a reflection that Biden’s administration continuously underplays the risks, suggesting wishful thinking rather than informed judgement. But critics argue whether such an assumption is merely a dangerous case of head-in-the-sand syndrome.
Would it be accurate to say that Biden’s stance on the Middle East showcases a lack of adequate foresight and preparation? Given the brewing tension, perhaps it’s time the administration reassessed its position and wondered if the reluctance to act decisively could lead to unintended outcomes.
Officials opine that no players in the region are keen on catalyzing a full-blown conflict that engulfs the Middle East. This position seems naive, or at the very least, overly optimistic. It raises questions about Biden’s foreign policy, which appears to be dangerously reactive rather than decisively proactive.
One cannot help but question if this belief in the potential for peace is not just a miscalculation but a catastrophe waiting to happen. The current ideological position, particularly Biden’s stance, tends to downplay the possibility of a full-scale war. Such a casual disregard towards a burgeoning issue might just trigger the disaster the world is trying to avoid.
The world waits in anticipation, watching how this political drama unfolds. With every passing day and escalating tensions, one can only hope that the Biden administration reevaluates its strategies. The wider consensus among critics and political observers appears to suggest that a stronger and more decisive stand is expected.
Reading between the lines, one can observe the paradox of U.S. foreign policy under Biden’s administration. The administration’s presumption that there would be no full-blown conflict in the Middle East appears to be more of a desperate hope rather than a calculated assessment. The narrative surrounding Biden and Kamala Harris from this situation seems to be one of ineffectiveness and a vague stance on foreign policy.
Biden’s Miscalculation: Middle East Peace or Prelude to Catastrophe? appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
