The straightforward reason why the Biden and Obama administrations struggled with peace efforts in the Middle East is that their actions often contradicted the strategies adopted by President Trump, which eventually led to a ceasefire.
First, let’s take a look at Iran.
During this period, Iran was well-funded, advancing its nuclear weapon development, and supplying arms to Israel’s adversaries—Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Many in the radical Islamic factions believed that the end of Israel was inevitable.
Yet, both Democratic administrations continued to provide Iran with revenues from oil sales.
While they talked about scaling back Iran’s nuclear ambitions, they never aimed to eliminate it altogether. They seemed to view groups like Hezbollah and Hamas as invincible terrorist organizations.
Instead of deterring these threats, peace was pursued through appeasement.
Secondly, both Obama and Biden often placed pressure on Israel, specifically targeting Prime Minister Netanyahu to make concessions. However, neither administration clarified how Israel was supposed to defend itself against Iranian ambitions and missile threats from its adversaries.
This lack of a solid plan led neighboring states to perceive that aligning with a struggling United States was simply too risky.
Thirdly, both Obama and Biden have openly insulted leaders from Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Their disdain was clear, and the impact of their negative comments has lingered.
It’s doubtful that Obama would have ever backed the Abraham Accords, and Biden’s attempts to revive them seemed disjointed.
Neither Israel nor the Gulf monarchies found the incentive to collaborate with Democratic leaders they openly disliked.
In contrast, Trump’s respectful, engaging approach gained him considerable influence over Gulf leaders, including Sisi and Netanyahu.
Fourth, both administrations were hesitant to use military force against terrorism in the region.
They arguably missed opportunities to eliminate key terrorist figures like Iranian General Qasem Soleimani or significantly weaken ISIS.
This reluctance bred distrust among both Israelis and Arabs, who were wary of relying on a U.S. that might not have their backs.
Fifth, the global image of the Democratic administrations reflected an attitude of appeasement and indecision, emboldening adversaries and alarming allies.
The Middle East was reminded of U.S. actions in the past, such as the Libya bombings in 2011 or the unsteady negotiations led by John Kerry in 2013, which seemed to mirror later global events like Russia’s military actions and China’s diplomatic ploys.
This pattern led many in the region to believe that America was in a state of decline, unable to safeguard its interests or those of its partners.
Sixth, both Obama and Biden seemed limited by pressures from their political base, which is markedly different from Trump’s experience.
The left’s pro-Hamas and anti-Israel stance created obstacles preventing Democratic presidents from taking necessary risks. Trump, on the other hand, faced backlash but was willing to take decisive actions against Iran, empowering Netanyahu to respond vigorously against Hamas.
Seventh, the approaches of Democratic leaders often lacked the relatable touch that resonates with leaders in the region. They preferred diplomatic language, which didn’t connect well with Arabs or Israelis who understood practical benefits.
Trump’s view equated peace with mutual prosperity, and he leaned into business negotiations, including himself and key players like Jared Kushner.
This business-oriented mindset seemed to resonate more with their Middle Eastern counterparts.
Finally, Obama and Biden were often seen as making empty threats, which diminished their credibility.
For instance, few took Obama’s warnings about Syria seriously, nor did many believe Biden’s stern words during the tension prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
In comparison, Trump’s threats appeared substantive and actionable.
American administrations previously grappled with Qatar’s duplicity, where appeasement was the norm. Yet, Trump tried a more balanced approach, utilizing both incentives and constraints.
The teams behind Obama and Biden, including notable figures like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, often amplified their shortcomings in handling foreign policy.
In stark contrast, Trump’s policies were guided by effective strategists who understood the dynamics at play.
