The Gateway SPI Strategic Policies & Ideas
Amir Maghdoor Mashhood
In 2024, we will witness the elections of the three main actors of the international system: The United States, the European Union, and Russia. There have been many discussions about the effects of the possible results of each of these elections. By looking closely at the debates of the electoral rivals, it is clear that the Middle East is at the center of these debates. Each of the electoral rivals shows various promises and solutions for the Middle East by bringing up issues such as terrorism, immigration, Islamism, racism, etc.
In this note, I show the fundamental factor formed in recent years, which is the main reason for the foreign policy of each of these powers in the Middle East. Therefore, despite various promises, the electoral rivals cannot make much change. Changing and solving the problems of the Middle East requires difficult and courageous decisions, of which there are currently no signs.
In the election debates in the West, we see a kind of concern about the future. Conservatives are seeking to build strong walls around themselves to protect the flood of immigrants from the Middle East and on the opposite side, liberals and leftists are sounding the alarm for the resurgence of racism and fascism and showing other requirements to protect themselves. There is not a sign In the words of the rivals to help for change and solve the problems of the Middle East, all the rivals talk about the quality and coordinates of how to protect themselves against the sufferings caused by the Middle East. In other words, “protection” has replaced “problem-solving”. Metaphorically, it can be said that no one thinks of putting out the fire, everyone looks for fireproof clothing to be safe, not knowing that if the fire crosses a certain limit, it will melt everything.
First, it is necessary to talk about a turn in the policy of the West towards the Middle East. A turn that its sign can be seen in all the electoral controversies with all the rivals and seems to play a significant role in today’s situation. We will see that this turn of policy is not only a significant factor in adopting the approach of protection instead of solving the problem but also plays a role in creating the problem.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the heralds of liberal democracy declared the end of history and called themselves the victors of the historical battle of humanity. The establishment of democratic governments was considered the guarantee of the security and stability of the world, and it was thought that the wave of democratization with the support of Western governments could quickly conquer the entire globe. But suddenly it turned around. The 2008 US presidential election was the planting seed of a sapling, which continues to shadow heavily on all political issues in the world.
It all started with the dissatisfaction with the attack on Afghanistan and Iraq. The economic recession in 2008, together with the pressure of public opinion from the deaths of American soldiers in the Middle East, was a special opportunity for Barack Obama to win the US presidential election with the slogan of “change”. “Change” policy believed in “diplomacy first”. From one day, all the information, media, and artistic institutions of the West, especially the United States, unanimously sought to promote dialogue and diplomacy instead of coercive dealings with various factors of the international system. The only thing considered in this approach was “field agreement”. This new approach found results, some of which are mentioned:
• “Change” policy focused on “diplomacy first” did not take concern with the nature of political forces, their past performance, ideological foundations, their relationship with democracy, and many other factors. By simply defining small, short-term, and limited goals, the Western diplomatic apparatus enters into a deal and agreement with the government and anti-human groups. The best example of this approach is the negotiations with the religious regime ruling Iran regarding nuclear activity.
Without sensitivity about how much the religious regime ignores human rights, international agreements, etc., detailed negotiations were held only on nuclear enrichment.
• The hegemonic role that the United States assumed after the collapse of the bipolar world caused a lot of financial and human costs for this government. One of the main pillars of the “change” policy was the distribution of power and, accordingly, the distribution of costs and benefits for multiple actors. This approach led other activists to find a decisive role in the international system, who found not only problem-solving but also problem-creation as a useful factor in consolidating and developing their power. Again, the nuclear negotiations with the religious regime can be an example, in which Russia found a suitable position in international interactions due to its presence. In this regard, Mohammad Javad Zarif, the foreign minister of the religious regime at the time, admits that Russia was doing its best during these negotiations to prevent good relations between the West and the religious regime. In other words, the existence of the religious regime’s nuclear problem is considered an opportunity for Russia to advance its interests.
• According to the “change” policy, political parties and factions gradually made significant changes in their foundations and beliefs. To understand this importance, we can compare the foreign policy of two conservative administrations, George W. Bush and Donald Trump. The distinctive characteristic of the neoconservatives of the George W. Bush era in the Middle East was the plan and implementation of the “Greater Middle East”. This plan sought to stabilize security in the world through the emergence of democratic and human-oriented governments in the Middle East region. But Donald Trump’s policy is completely different from such an approach. He has been looking for the withdrawal of military forces from the Middle East region and preventing financial costs for changing the region’s situation. Trump sees security in building a “wall” around the United States and preventing people from moving on the one hand and imposing heavy tax tariffs.
• Although the experience of the 20th century had determined that adherence to basic human rights and maintaining moral norms are the main guarantors of preventing disasters such as World War II, international relations did not adhere to such norms after the establishment of Obama’s “change” policy. Although “diplomacy first” could temporarily prevent conflict, in the long run, it strengthens and stabilizes the “banality of evil”. Normalizing relations with anti-human groups not only made them gain wealth but anti-human behaviour is also considered normal and not so important. Ignoring the crimes against humanity and limiting ourselves to issuing a useless statement with the content of condemning these crimes has become a normal practice in the West.
• The politics of “change” had one great victim: democracy. The pro-democracy movements in the Middle East are in their early stages and immaturity. Obviously, given the long history of tyranny in this region, the victory of these movements will not be easy. It should be accepted, that no other solution than the establishment of democratic governments can be imagined to create security and constructive interactions. Unfortunately, the lack of success of the West in Afghanistan and to some extent in Iraq caused the support for civil, non-violent, and pro-democracy movements to decrease with the policy of “change”. A clear example of this issue is the Green movement in Iran and the struggle of democratic forces in Syria.
In general, it can be said that the policy of “change” has led to the opening of the playing field for forces in the Middle East which are the sworn enemies of democracy. According to this situation, the countries claiming liberal democracy are only seeking to protect themselves against these destructive forces with different qualities. Now, drawing such a situation, we are going to this year’s elections.
2024 elections
US presidential election
It can be predicted that the upcoming presidential election in the United States will be based on the competition between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. It seems that both parties affected by the politics of “change” are only looking for ways to protect themselves against anti-democratic forces.
Joe Biden
The current president continues the policy of “diplomacy first” in the field of international relations. Negotiating with all groups regardless of human rights standards on separate issues, avoiding coercive dealings with terrorist groups and accepting them as regional actors, lack of pragmatic support for regional liberation movements, ignoring clear examples of human rights violations in the extremes of the world and limiting the acceptance of asylum and permission for the limited immigration of victims of human rights violations are prominent features of the foreign policy of the Democrats since the Obama era. In continuation of Barack Obama’s “change” policy, the Biden government made a lot of efforts to communicate with the religious government in Iran and Islamist groups such as the Taliban and Hamas, directly and indirectly through the government of Qatar. The purpose of these interactions was to limit the military and terrorist power of these groups, by creating opportunities for economic income and stabilizing the presence of these groups, which has resulted in the suppression of pro-democracy movements. The tragedy of handing over Afghanistan to the Taliban is considered one of the bitterest events in the history of mankind, which was carried out by the Joe Biden government.
Donald Trump
The experience of Donald Trump’s presidency shows that, unlike another president of the Republican Party, George W. Bush, he does not see the establishment of international order and security in the normalization of reliable governments and powers, but is influenced by Barack Obama’s “change” policy by avoiding international conflicts and just seeking to simply build a wall. He considers the strict control of the borders to be the guarantor of security in the territory of the United States. Negotiating with groups such as the Taliban and the North Korean leader showed that the human values of the West are not very important to him and only the economy is the determining criterion for his dealings. Although at the beginning of his administration, Donald Trump tore up the JCPOA and imposed severe economic sanctions on the religious government ruling Iran, his goal has never been to provide conditions for the success of pro-democracy movements. He always emphasized that the mullahs should make a deal with him. He emphasized that the JCPOA is an agreement between the United States and the regime of the mullahs, but its economic benefit will be directed to others. We will not forget that he started negotiations to hand over Afghanistan to the Taliban, and after the establishment of the Taliban government in Afghanistan, although he condemned the Biden government because of the American weapons left in Afghanistan, he strongly encouraged the Taliban because of their success.
It can be said that the victory of each of these two candidates will only affect the manner and quality of “protection” against Islamist and anti-democratic forces. The Democratic Party still believes that economic privileges can be used to control the activities of these anti-democratic groups and governments. On the other hand, Donald Trump considers the creation of hard walls as the main factor of protection and defines the economic activity of these groups and governments as dependent on increasing the economic benefit of the United States.
European Union Parliament Elections
The essence of the formation of the European Union is based on convergence and building constructive relations, so its foreign relations cannot be in contradiction with it. Maastricht Treaty emphasizes the development and strengthening of democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Traditionally, the electoral competition of the European Parliament has mainly been formed around the gap between national sovereignty and union sovereignty. On the one hand, liberals and leftists are looking for convergence and creating a strong union, and on the other hand, conservatives prefer the national sovereignty of modern governments and accept the union under national governments.
In this period, affected by the “change” policy, this duality has been combined with other components. Without distinguishing between Islamist groups and Muslims, conservatives emphasize Islamophobia, rejecting Muslim citizens and preventing their immigration. A clear example of this approach can be seen in the recent meeting of the Alternative for Deutschland (AFD) party.
Contrary to the essence of the European Union’s democratic convergence, its foreign policy approach in the Middle East has been affected by the policy of “change” towards appeasement and making the deal with Tyrannical governments and Islamist groups. One of the bitterest memories of European officials among Iranians was the behavior of the Belgian foreign minister during the “Women-Life-Freedom” pro-democracy movement. After the death of Mehsa Amini, Belgian Foreign Minister Hadja Lahbib symbolically showed her support for the pro-democracy movement by cutting her hair in public, but some days later, by negotiating with the foreign minister of the religious regime and inviting the mayor of Tehran to Brussels, she became a bitter memory for the people of Iran. However, perhaps the only difference in the results of the European Parliament elections is the ease or difficulty of Muslim migration to Europe.
Russian presidential election
Among the elections that will be held in 2024, it can be said with certainty that the result of the Russian elections is already known. Vladimir Putin is trying to legitimize his presence as the head of the Russian government for another term through the elections.
After the collapse of the bipolar system and the decline of the Soviet Union, Russia had become a normal country. But after the “change” policy, it got the opportunity to be an influential power in international interactions. Putin knew better than anyone the conflict between tyrannical regimes and democratic movements. Because of this, he was able to achieve an important role in international relations in less than a decade. By being close to non-democratic governments, he was able to find significant followers and allies in the world as well as in the Middle East. The alliance between Russia and non-democratic governments today has led to a challenge for the West. A clear example of that is the issue of Ukraine, which until a few years ago did not show any signs of today’s situation. The cooperation of the Islamist regime ruling Iran with Russia in the Ukraine war shows that the threat of an undemocratic alliance is not limited to the people’s movements within the territory and can extend to Europe.
Last word
The Middle East is a playground where, on the one hand, Putin’s Russia, along with non-democratic and Islamist groups and governments, seek to develop their power. On the other hand, democratic countries seek how to protect themselves against these non-democratic powers. The result of the Russian elections is clear, in any case, Putin’s election will lead to the continuation of his alliance with the government and anti-democratic Islamist groups against the West and democratic values. On the other hand, the American elections affect the way of economic interactions and their connection with self-protection. Democrats see the economic interests of non-democratic groups and governments as an important factor for self-protection. At the same time, Trump (I’m not sure if all Republicans are like this) defines economic interactions as solely focused on economic interests, and protection against terrorism depends on creating walls around the borders of the United States. In Europe, the competition is over the quality and quantity of immigration. Depending on the victory of each competitor, the way of dealing with immigrants from the Middle East will be different.
It should be said that while the winner of the Russian election, Putin, has opened a special account on the alliance with non-democratic groups and governments to fight against Western values, there are not seen the impact of the election results in America and Europe on limiting the government and non-democratic groups and creating opportunities for Democratic movements.
GSPI does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of GSPI, its staff, or its trustees.
