Much of the current discourse on the Middle East remains fixated on the US midterm congressionalelectionsthis coming November. This vote, in particular, is being framed as a pivotal turning point for everything from the survival of Gaza and Lebanon to the future of Iran and beyond.
To a large extent, one can understand why US corporate media is obsessed with this date.
US political power is divided between two ruling parties, each deeply embedded in an intricate system of powerful political and economic elites. For these groups, election results are decisive in shaping the overall direction of the country, but more specifically, they determine the fortunes and misfortunes of a ruling class whose very fate is tied to the corridors of power.
However, there is a distinct irony in this fixation. Rarely do ordinary Americans feel the direct impact of these results – at least not immediately – as the massive US economy seldom responds to sudden political stimuli. This is why, historically, Americansdo not votein large numbers, and why a vast majority continue to distrust their government, whether it is led by Republicans or Democrats.
The interest from Western commentators outside the US also makes a certain kind of sense. A victorious Republican party would strengthen President Trump, who would likely double down on his anti-NATOrhetoricand protectionist tradepolicies. Trade between Europe and the US would likely be upended by an empowered Trump, who would view a victory as a mandate topunishEuropeans for failing to back his ‘maximum pressure’ military campaigns or for refusing to act as obedient junior partners ready to rubber-stamp every American decision, however reckless.
But what makes far less sense is the waiting game currently being played across the Arab world. This posture erroneously suggests that the future of our region – whether it be continued war or a path to peace – hinges entirely on the American vote.
While these elections are not irrelevant, the emphasis placed on them as the primary driver of Middle Eastern reality is greatly exaggerated. This obsession reflects both a lack of historical knowledge and a failure to recognize the agency of the peoples and leaderships of our own region.
History shows us that regardless of the party in power, the outcome of USinterventionismremains remarkably consistent. Consider the following record:
President Bill Clinton, a Democrat,orderedthe bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceuticalfactoryin Sudan in August 1998 and of Iraq during Operation Desert Fox in December of the same year. Despite being perceived as a non-hawkish leader focused on thedoctrineof ‘dual containment,’ Clinton frequently utilized military force in the Middle East to distract from his personal scandals at home.
George W. Bush initiallysparkedconcern among the Washington Israel lobby for his perceived lack of pro-Israel appointments. Yet, he eventually waged catastrophic wars across the region in total alignment with Israeli strategic goals.
Source: Antiwar.com
