Recent drone attack which resulted in the death of three US soldiers, has brought Joe Biden’s handling of the conflict in the Middle East under renewed scrutiny. Under pressure from critics demanding a decisive response, the president promised to achieve this “hold all those responsible accountable”.
However, the use of force in an election yr is fraught with political risk.
Latest polls suggests that U.S. public opinion is split on the Gaza conflict. According to a poll taken last month, 39% of voters favor continuing Israel’s military campaign, while 44% say Israel should stop to avoid mounting civilian casualties. Another survey suggests that the sympathies of those that voted for Biden in 2020 are evenly divided between Israel and the Palestinians.
Most importantly, 57% of voters condemn the president’s approach to the war. These sentiments are particularly strong amongst younger voters and Democrats, on whom Biden’s re-election hopes may depend.
Biden’s Republican opponents have done this as well in line for lambast his. Donald Trump, who seems almost certain to secure his party’s nomination in November’s presidential elections, attributes the recent attack to Biden’s “weakness and surrender”, while Nikki Haley, Trump’s only Republican challenger, he suggested it The United States should “pursue” Iran’s military leaders.
Lining criticism ideal on all sides solution Biden will likely be the one to satisfy public demands to “do something” without alienating his base or upsetting an expansion of the war.
Balancing risk
Biden’s challenge is a well-known one. If I show up my last bookpresidents throughout history have taken political considerations into consideration when making decisions about war and peace. As commander-in-chief and holder of the best elected office in the United States, presidents must balance the conflicting interests of national security and political survival.
This normally results in some caution. Because voters bear most of the human and financial costs of war, they have a tendency to not reward officials who recklessly engage in conflict. So presidents have good political reasons to think twice before putting soldiers in harm’s way. As former President George W. Bush he once joked to soldiers in the Middle East: “In a democracy you don’t run for office and say, ‘Please vote for me, I promise you war.'”
But the facility of this sort of democratic constraint can vary depending on context AND additional time. More and more victims are inclined to undermine support for long-term commitments, but shocking events or provocations akin to those who occurred over the weekend also can trigger public demand for revenge.
Lessons from history
We’ve been here before. Almost exactly 4 years ago, Trump authorized the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, a senior Iranian military commander, apparently motivated in part by look tough in an election yr. Trump then decided to de-escalate, refusing to reply militarily to attacks on bases housing US soldiers in Iraq. It was an indication that his appetite for direct conflict with Iran had increased moderated By similar political realities which now face his successor.
Trump’s recent criticism of Biden’s policies, including: his claim on social media that “this attack would NEVER have happened if I were president, there wouldn’t even be a chance” – he conveniently doesn’t mention it. However, that is the kind of counterfactual criticism that characterizes candidates difficult an incumbent he often tended to embracewith the knowledge that they’ll not be held accountable for implementing policies that will prove unwise or unworkable. At least not until after the elections.
EPA-EFE/Michael Reynolds
Elsewhere, my research indicates that this dynamic also occurred during previous conflicts involving the US. During the Iraq War, for instance, the Bush and Obama administrations became increasingly concerned about additional or prolonged troop deployments as elections approached.
More broadly, a number of studies show that there are often more leaders facing re-election averse to conflict, entering fewer wars in the months preceding the elections than in the remaining periods of his term.
An end to infinite wars?
Regardless of whether it’s durable diplomatic solution to the Gaza crisis stays to be seen. But from a broader perspective, the genie could also be out of the bottle. Only a couple of months have passed because the triumph of American national security adviser Jake Sullivan decided that “the Middle East region is calmer today than it has been for two decades.”
On Monday, the Secretary of State – warned Antony Blinken that the Middle East is facing its most “dangerous” situation since at the very least 1973.
This rhetorical gymnastics reflects a rapidly changing strategic reality. But in addition they empty the political guarantees of subsequent presidents – including Biden – ending an era of major military operations in the broader region.
The reality is that many of the forces deployed to the region to fight Islamic State have never left. The US still has hundreds of soldiers was stationed in Iraq, Syria and Jordan. It was these forces that were subject to periodic attacks by Iranian proxies. There have been over 150 such attacks occurred from October 7.
In combination with joint American-British raids against Houthi targets in Yemen, the promised response to last weekend’s attack indicates that we could also be entering the newest installment of the “endless wars” that Biden had hoped to maneuver away from. As such, the episode raises questions on the scope of the United States’ broader military involvement in the Middle East and whether either candidate is willing to clarify the true strategic trade-offs embedded in their guarantees.
Meanwhile, we will be certain of one thing: war might be a vital topic in the November presidential elections.