United States has for decades been deeply involved in the Middle East, and particularly in the ongoing conflict between Israel and its various neighbors. This is why there is been a good deal of speculation of late as to how US policy toward Israel during a future Hillary Clinton presidency might differ from (or be similar to) that of the current Obama administration. Since leaving the State Department, Clinton has provided some indication about what her policies would be in the Middle East in general and Israel in particular. Nevertheless, a certain degree of uncertainty still exists. While there will no doubt be some differences between the policies of the new administration and the prior one, as well as changes in how it is perceived in the region, it seems likely that President Clinton’s approach will ultimately prove to be quite similar to that carried out by the Obama administration. The following essay will consider this point.
One of the countless foreign policy issues facing an incoming President Clinton is going to have to face will be the urgent matter of the various crises currently roiling throughout the Middle East. Currently, there is increasing tension between the Arab Gulf states and Israel, combat between Iraqi and Syrian forces and ISIS, troubled political conditions in Libya and Yemen, the contention about the Iranian nuclear deal nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran and an ongoing Middle Eastern refugee crisis in Europe (Metz 1). Given all of this, it seems likely that the Middle Eastern situation will dominate a Clinton presidency much as it has dominated the Obama presidency.
Given all of this, Pres. Hillary Clinton will likely have to find a careful balance between a number of different priorities, including promoting US goals in the region, advocating for human rights and dealing with any significant security issues (such as terrorist threats for state upheavals). Obviously, of these various goals the security issues are likely to consume most of the Clinton administration’s efforts in the region. There is evidence that suggests that the Clinton administration would be far more realist in nature when it comes to this area and less prone to leave idealistic approach favored by Obama (at least during his first term). For example, it should be pointed out that when Pres. Obama and his youthful advisors were caught up in the dramatic events surrounding the so-called “Arab Spring,” Clinton (then Secretary of State) advise strongly against a sudden departure of Hosni Mubarak (who was then president of Egypt). Of course, the situation in Egypt has evolved significantly from 2011, tending to prove Clinton’s point (Ahmari 24).
It also seems quite unlikely that Hillary Clinton would as president be willing to commit significant numbers of troops in either Syria or Iraq in an effort to (on the one hand) overthrow Pres. Assad or (on the other hand) crush ISIS. Given that Clinton was one of the principal voices supporting the idea of the French/British military intervention in Libya in 2011, it seems likely that she will have learned her lesson from the result. Furthermore, there is an increasing agreement in Washington diplomatic circles that the primary interests of the United States in the future will be in East Asia. Thus, a Clinton administration would be far less interested in Middle East adventurism.
Thus, any differences we might see him President Clinton’s approach to the Middle East will come in the area of emphasis, tone and strategy. In this regard, a principal goal will likely be attempting to eliminate the perception that the United States is now week and less resolute because it has shied away from actively attempting to solve international problems by using either its diplomatic influence for military capabilities. Clinton is most likely to attempt to reinforce the Obama administration’s efforts to dispel the concerns that many US allies in the region have about the Iranian nuclear inspections agreement. One of the nations most concerned (and vocal) and this issue is Israel. Given that Clinton herself was involved in the secret negotiations with Iran, this will be difficult (Cohen 1).
The delicate balancing act President Clinton will have to carry out is most obvious in the often touchy (and sometimes acrimonious) relationship the United States has with the nation of Israel. As has been made clear many times in the media, President Obama’s administration has experienced considerable tension in its interactions with the far right government of Benjamin Netanyahu. One of the reasons for these tensions was the early desire of the newly inaugurated Obama to shift US foreign policy away from the Bush administration’s very close ties with Israel, which were seen as too biased in favor of Israel in almost every circumstance.
The result of this decision was that the US distanced itself a bit from Israel (while still remaining its ally). As the same time, the US attempted to reset and reinvigorate its relationship with the Islamic world. This was soon followed by US demands that the Israeli government put a halt to anymore settlements (at least temporarily). The Obama administration felt that this would be viewed as a gesture of goodwill and might improve in the chances of successful negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. However, Israel was extremely concerned about this suggestion and vehemently opposed to the idea. Tensions between the two nations increased following the US decision to stop supporting Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. Things were made worse by Netanyahu’s very public refusal to accept Obama’s suggestion that Palestinian/Israeli negotiations be based on a return to the old 1967 borders. When the Muslim Brotherhood won the Egyptian elections in 2012, Israel became even more concerned about the direction the Obama administration was taking.
Although Hillary Clinton clearly disliked Pres. Obama’s proposal of a settlement freeze, Secretary Clinton agreed with Pres. Obama (as well as the entire foreign policy establishment within the United States) that Benjamin Netanyahu’s approach and decisions were making the situation impossible to resolve. This frustration with Netanyahu went back many years. Although Netanyahu was not prime minister at the time, Secretary of State James Baker actually banned Netanyahu from visiting the US State Department in the early 90s. Furthermore, in 1996 Pres. Bill Clinton expressed his own annoyance with Netanyahu in extremely colorful language.
With regard to the continuing efforts by Netanyahu’s government to establish even more settlements on the West Bank, there are in fact a number of things the United States can do to apply pressure to the state of Israel on this issue. For instance, the US could investigate the flow of private donations from the United States that help to support the settlement efforts. However, no administration (including the Obama administration) has been willing to face the political pressure that would result from taking a truly harder stance with Israel. Even Obama’s somewhat clumsy attempt to bribe the Israeli government by offering to sell them 20 F 35 fighters and a bargain-basement price failed to convince the Israelis to agree to a 90 day moratorium. Given how badly this effort turned out, it’s highly improbable that Hillary Clinton would be willing to expend a great deal of effort toward resolving the settlement issue. It is far more probable that a new Clinton administration would continue Obama’s existing policy in which the US has largely ceased attempting to convince its allies not to criticize Israel for the settlements. Previous administrations had made every effort to ensure that European allies (for example) avoided any overt criticism of Israel at all.
Rather than concerning herself with a total reset of relations with the Islamic world, Clinton will most likely want during her first time toward a better relationship with Saudi Arabia and Israel. Interestingly, these are both nations who were extremely dubious about the 2011 protests throughout the Arab world and the policies carried out by the Obama administration during the so-called “Arab Spring.” Of these two countries, there is no denying that Israel is far and away more important to a US presidential candidate seeking election (or reelection). For this reason, Clinton has already been reaching out to the Jewish community in the United States and in Israel, guaranteeing them greater support and a change from the policies of the previous administration.
Recently, Hillary Clinton wrote an article for Forward Magazine in which she affirmed her strong support for Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu. Clinton goes on to promise that she asked Netanyahu to visit the White House early on in her new administration, with the goal of enhancing “our strategic partnership and strengthen America’s security commitment to Israel” (Clinton Online). Of course, promises made in the heat of an election are not necessarily adhered to after the election. There is no guarantee that the animus that existed between Pres. Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu (and by extension between the United States and Israel) will not continue during the presidency of Hillary Clinton.
Many within Israel (as well is in conservative news outlets in the United States) have been suggesting that Hillary Clinton is not necessarily Israel’s friend. These critics of Hillary Clinton have pointed to the fact that Sidney Blumenthal is one of her closest advisors and that his son (Max Blumenthal) is strongly critical of Israel and its policies. However, these critics fail to recognize or acknowledge that Clinton receives a broad spectrum of advice from Americans with many different points of view. Some of these individuals are critical of Israel, while others are not.
Moreover, the criticisms being leveled at Israel reflect a genuine frustration with the obstinate policies of Netanyahu and the Israeli government. These critics of Israel and its government feel that Israel’s policies are not only counterproductive for the peace process, they are also contrary to the Democratic traditions of the state of Israel. Such concerns have been voiced by many former US ambassadors to Israel, as well as the current Secretary of State, John Kerry.
Particularly for those in the Democratic Party who have long supported the state of Israel, Netanyahu’s open association with the Republican Party seems like a betrayal of a longtime friendship. However, while these disagreements have been vocal and serious, they have not yet been allowed to affect America’s significant economic and military support the state of Israel. This support has continued in spite of the increasing animosity that has sprung up between the two governments.
In fact, the Obama administration has significantly increased how much military aid the United States has provided to the state of Israel. Furthermore, the US government has repeatedly stated that Israel has a clear right of self-defense when it comes to potential threats it might face from surrounding nations, as well as from Hamas or Gaza. It should be noted that even on the contentious issue of continuing Israeli construction of settlements in the occupied territories, the US chose to veto a UN resolution containing statements that (in fact) were quite similar to those the United States itself was already making. In addition to this, the US recently offered a Memorandum of Understanding intended to establish new and augmented military capabilities for Israel. Finally, the Obama administration is considering increasing aid to Israel from $3.1 billion per year to as much as $4.5 billion. One such agreement was signed and implemented, Hillary Clinton could hope to inherit a much improved Israel/US relationship. This would presumably be reflected in an improvement in the tone and signs of cooperation between the two states. At the same time any disagreements in regard to political aims or long-term strategies could be sidestepped for the moment. In the end though, it seems likely that Hillary Clinton will insist upon a two state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian problem, just as the Obama administration did.
In conclusion, it seems clear that the relationship between the state of Israel and the United States is likely to improve (at least to a degree) in a Hillary Clinton Administration. At the same time, more careful language, tone and diplomacy cannot necessarily eliminate the chance for further friction and even crises in the Israeli/US relationship. All it would take is a sudden outbreak of violence in Gaza or the West Bank or an increase in pressure by the Europeans to restart the Palestinian/Israeli peace talks for tensions between Israel and the United States to rise again. However, given that the opposition in Israel has been unable to mount any serious challenge to the current far right government led by Netanyahu, it seems likely that a Clinton administration will do all that it can to work with Netanyahu’s government. Furthermore, because of the difficulties inherent in the peace process between the Palestinians and the Israelis, it seems probable that Hillary Clinton will attempt to avoid focusing on this issue during her first term.
Works Cited
Ahmari, Sohrab. "The Failure Of Arab Liberals." Commentary 133.5 (2012): 21-25.
Clinton, Hillary. "How I Would Reaffirm Unbreakable Bond With Israel - and Benjamin Netanyahu." The Forward. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 June 2016.
Cohen, Michael A. "In Iran Speech, Clinton Reveals Her Hawkish Tendencies." World Politics Review (Selective Content) (2015): 1.
Metz, Steven. "On Iran, U.S. Torn Between Supporting Israel And Fighting IS." World Politics Review (Selective Content) (2015): 1.
