We have seen this clearly in our Arab world in the past decades. Even those countries that were declaring hostility to the United States, such as Syria, Iraq and Libya, took into account before taking a stand the American mind, which is what we notice in the late President Saddam Hussein's statement to the American ambassador April Glaspie, hours after his invasion of Kuwait, that he could be America's policeman in the region if the United States accepted that occupation. We also see that picture clearly in the Syrian request from the American side to accept its occupation of Lebanon as a price for its participation in Removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
At home, there is no doubt that most politicians and economists often wonder about the motive behind adopting a position on foreign policy issues, as American interests may clash with the theses of one of the two parties that are always declared.
But the question here is: Are there domestic matters in the United States that are straining the formation of foreign policy in something?
The answer is definitely. Yes. The exit of the United States from some conflict zones in the world was mainly through internal pressure that contributed widely to the media.
That media, which sees the Middle East as a repository of many American interests, sees today special importance in President Biden's formation of a geopolitical map in the Middle East to normalize relations between the rest of the Arab countries and Israel, and that will undoubtedly - if it happens - will be one of the most important American successes in modern geopolitical history at the level of the Middle East, as Saudi Arabia, for example, has the leadership of the Islamic world, and therefore Biden's success in obtaining that peace is in no way less than the success of President Carter in reaching peace between Egypt and Israel in 1979.
If successful, it will also serve as a backstop for his re-election through the domestic outlook in the United States, as it will satisfy a strategic ambition that has interested American presidents, bipartisans and even many American people over the past 50 years. If the Middle East is coherent, this is very important for the United States, which is dispersed in its efforts to bring the earth through confrontation with China, Russia and the major economies that will be established in the world, and in general, the American interior, as I understand here in Washington and near the Capitol, believes that the agreement will be reached definitively within 6 months, provided that Israel makes concessions regarding the aspirations of the Palestinians to establish a state.
It goes without saying that since the end of World War II, the Middle East has been crucial to the United States, and because confronting communism has been a goal, the vast oil reserves in the Middle East have always been the primary concern of the United States, its leaders and politicians.
Years ago, I met many times with Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was the national security adviser under President Carter, who told me that he drafted what was known in 1980 as the "Carter Doctrine in the Gulf" and that he wrote in his own handwriting that this doctrine considers the attempt by any outside power to control the Gulf region to be an attack on the vital interests of the United States and will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.
During an interview with an American senator in the past hours, I asked him: How does the American interior view Biden today with regard to his foreign policies, especially in the Middle East, and his answer was to remind me of an article published by President Biden a year ago under the title Why am I going to Saudi Arabia?
His conclusion was that the waterways and energy sources in the Middle East cannot be dispensed with by America and that the conviction of the American interior is also so, but I was surprised when he said to me: Do not forget, madam, that Biden's policies, even if they led to an increase in the influence of Russia and China in the Middle East, there are many conditions that the Biden administration can create in order to create renewed crises in the Middle East.
In my opinion, the Democratic and Republican parties, although they are active in the foreign policy of the United States today, nationalist parties, organizations under globalization, and even the American people are all taken into account as factors in decision-making regarding the foreign policies of the American state, between national interests and America's view of its friends in the Middle East, and its desire to establish friendly relations with any strategically located country, values cannot trump considerations of U.S. national security interests. Through realpolitik, pragmatism, and even if America wants to explore the possibility of changing the compass in its policy today in the Middle East, there are other options that could collide with that change or possible modification.
The strategic importance of India, for example, cannot make it possible for the United States to seize the freedom to exploit passage in the Indo-Pacific Oceans, nor even to pressure more than half of the world's countries, which can discourage the desires of those countries to coordinate with China and benefit from its very large economy, not to mention the desire of some American companies at home to facilitate their business with the Chinese genie.
Today, with the most repeated question... Does America want to reform or change the compass of its Middle East policy?
Do you want to build new alliances in the world?
I say here that for the first time, it was revealed during the past hours, in the words of the American journalist Josh Rogin in the Washington Post, that he has in his hands reports from within Congress that cannot be published now that the United States has begun negotiations with Japan and the Philippines about the establishment of an alliance called "Jaropos" that brings together the three countries that will pose a strong threat to China and its economic influence in the Middle East, not to mention that Japan is in a security alliance with India within the "Quad" alliance, which includes America, India, Australia and Japan.
In conclusion, many countries and alliances have become a regional and economic challenge for the United States, and the merchandise of "human rights issues" does not constitute that concern in exchange for economic interests within the conscience and theses of the American people.
Fortifying relations with many countries – not strengthening them – has become the main concern of the US administration, whose compass is unable to look in one direction.