Biden and Netanyahu – and the diminished US standing in Middle East

President Joe Biden was asked last week if he thought Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was deliberately acting in ways to sway the U.S. presidential election.

His strikingly passive response, clearly tinged with disappointment, communicated much more than a simple answer to the question.

“Whether he’s trying to influence the election, I don’t know,” said Mr. Biden, before adding that, in any case, Mr. Netanyahu should remember that “no administration has done more for Israel than I have. None, none, none.”

He was the first U.S. president to visit Israel in wartime, having arrived in Tel Aviv just days after the shocking Hamas attacks of Oct. 7 to wrap the Israeli leader (and all Israel, collectively) in an “unshakable” embrace of American support.

And yet here was Mr. Biden in the White House briefing room a year later, unsure of the Israeli leader’s objectives. His uncertainty underscored how for months the United States had repeatedly been left in the dark on Israeli escalatory actions in Gaza, against Hezbollah in Lebanon, and now over Israel’s anticipated retaliation against Iran.

More than anything, Mr. Biden’s words underscored how little sway the U.S. has over players and events in the region, and just how diminished U.S. standing is.

“Who knows what’s next?”

That President Biden couldn’t reject the possibility that Mr. Netanyahu wants to influence the U.S. election “suggests to me that the U.S. is not in the driver’s seat here,” says Rosemary Kelanic, director of the Middle East program at Defense Priorities, a Washington think tank that promotes restraint and focus on core interests in U.S. foreign policy.

“Not only is the U.S. just along for the ride, but it doesn’t even know where the destination is.”

Noting the number of instances over the past year in which Israel reportedly gave the U.S. no advance notice of potentially escalatory actions – including last month’s pager attacks in Lebanon and the bombing in Beirut that killed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah – she says this situation “reveals just how little leverage the U.S. has” with Israel.

“From the U.S. perspective,” she adds, “who knows what’s next?”

That question is echoing across Washington and other capitals as the world waits to see how Israel will deliver its promised retaliation against Iran for its Oct. 1 missile attacks on Israel.

While global markets are already anticipating that Israel will go after Iran’s vast oil-production infrastructure – world oil prices have shot up this week – U.S. officials are more worried that Israel will try to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Most military experts believe Israel could not significantly damage Iran’s deeply buried nuclear installations without U.S. military assistance.

Mr. Biden has publicly cautioned Israel against attacking Iran’s nuclear sites – a move U.S. officials worry could provoke a cataclysmic response from Tehran.

But the world has observed Mr. Netanyahu repeatedly disregarding and disparaging U.S. counsel over the past year, some experts say. They warn that the spectacle has damaged U.S. stature and credibility among friends and adversaries alike.

“Netanyahu has time and again demonstrated to the world that one could not only stiff arm the U.S., but could repeatedly leave it in the dark on its actions and openly lie about what the U.S. was doing [for example, regarding arms deliveries] – and do so with impunity,” says Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

“That’s not a very useful lesson for the world to learn,” says Mr. Alterman, a former special assistant to the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs.

Declining U.S. stature in Mideast

Indeed, at the recent U.N. General Assembly meeting in New York, one of the buzziest topics of hallway chatter was American impotence and inability to influence its key Middle East ally, officials from several countries report.

The past year demonstrates how profoundly the earthquake of the Oct. 7 attacks has shaken and realigned the trajectory and power balance of the Middle East. Most significant, perhaps, has been the U.S. relegation from unrivaled engine for regional action to almost observer status.

“Even if it had been possible to reach a cease-fire deal on Gaza, it would have been the result of the U.S. and Egypt and Qatar working together, so even that would have underscored how the world has changed from the days when the U.S. largely made things happen on its own,” says Bruce Jentleson, a professor of public policy and political science at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

Given that reality, Dr. Jentleson, a former State Department Middle East expert, says the Biden administration erred by repeatedly proclaiming its diplomatic efforts were on the verge of bearing fruit. “I never thought it was wise to say you were so, so close to completing a negotiation” for a Gaza cease-fire, he says. “Overall,” he adds, “we haven’t played our hand very well.”

And one of the biggest mistakes foreign policy experts say President Biden made was to allow his “unshakable support” for Israel blind him to the unfriendly actions and overriding political motivations of the Israeli leader.

“I don’t know what single action by the U.S. would have changed the course of this conflict,” says Dr. Alterman, “but what I do know is that the Israeli prime minister ambushed the leader of the country that has done more than any other ... to protect Israel and its interests.”

Few regional experts say the differences with Mr. Netanyahu should have prompted the U.S. to cut off military assistance to Israel. “Given the nature of Israel’s adversaries, I have a hard time with the argument the U.S. should have conditioned aid to Israel,” Dr. Alterman says.

But some argue there were ways to set a tougher tone. “There is a difference between defending Israel against its enemies, and giving them that same ironclad support for their actions in Gaza and the West Bank that we saw as contrary to our interests,” Dr. Jentleson says.

Noting that Mr. Netanyahu was actively undermining U.S. diplomatic efforts and “disparaging the administration” directly with U.S. audiences, Dr. Alterman says the Biden administration should have at least been more upfront about its differences with the Israeli leader.

Drawing an analogy to the “Marquess of Queensberry rules” that set the standards for fairness in boxing, he says, “If they were not going to play by the rules, why are we going to be polite and play by the rules? I don’t get it.”

An altered legacy

For numerous observers, America’s sidelining in the course-setting of Middle East affairs – and in particular Mr. Biden’s inability despite months of effort to deliver a cease-fire and nip an expanding conflict in the bud – underscore how profoundly things have changed in a year.

In September 2023, a commanding President Biden announced at a Group of 20 summit a Middle East trade plan that was to be one piece of a grand re-imagining of the region. The vision, seen as contrary to Iran’s or Hamas’ interests, included normalized Israeli-Saudi relations, a Palestinian state, and a U.S.-Saudi strategic partnership.

Mr. Biden dubbed the ambitious plan “an inflection point in history,” and it was widely understood that the plan would cement Mr. Biden’s legacy in the region.

Now that legacy is a shambles, and for much of the region and beyond, Mr. Biden’s Middle East legacy will be almost the contrary: an unwitting facilitation of a devastating regional conflict as a result of unquestioned support for an ally whose leader has repeatedly disregarded U.S. counsel for restraint and de-escalation.

“There’s no question that moral hazard is at work in the U.S.-Israeli relationship,” says Dr. Kelanic of Defense Priorities. “Iron-clad support for Israel … can create perverse incentives for Netanyahu to behave more aggressively [and] take greater risks knowing the U.S. has Israel’s back, perhaps no matter what.”