MAGA in the Middle East

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has decided to make a strategic move, both domestically and internationally. Although its international reputation is at an all-time low due to the war in Gaza, Israel’s effective power in the region is now at an all-time high. Almost two years after the October 7 attacks, Iran’s two main proxies in the region – Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon – are operationally weaker than ever. It seems clear that Netanyahu sees this as a historic opportunity. If the attack on Iran goes well, Netanyahu will not only assert his regional dominance and delay or thwart the Iranian regime’s nuclear plans, but he could also call new elections in Israel and even win them. A few months ago, this was far from the case. In addition to the domestic opposition that has always existed, many Israelis were of the opinion that, after the end of the war in Gaza, it would be necessary to determine responsibility for the failures in defense, intelligence and the State itself that failed to prevent the attacks of October 7.

At the time of writing, it is unclear what the US administration’s decision will be on whether the US should directly engage in the conflict. Donald Trump is still weighing up his options and has already stated that he “may or may not” join Netanyahu. Clearly, the decision is being made. On the one hand, Trump is seduced by the idea of ​​joining Netanyahu and potentially achieving a major military victory against an enemy regime. Pressure from Israel and its allies for US involvement will be high, since US military aid could be essential for a decisive victory over Iran. On the other hand, Donald Trump is also aware of the political cost of involving the United States in what he himself has called a “forever war”, such as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which Trump has fiercely criticised. In such a military intervention, the initial, purely offensive phase is relatively easier given US superiority. The problem, however, is the moment that follows, as Afghanistan and Iraq have demonstrated. So at this point, the safest and most rational choice for Trump would be to use the current leverage of Israeli military superiority, coupled with the threat of American involvement, to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran that is favorable to Israel and to US interests. The author of “ The Art of the Deal ” could then return home and declare that he, more than anyone else, knows how to make deals around the world, with allies and enemies, that benefit the US and avoid loss of human life and high military costs.

Interestingly, however, the political coalition that elected him appears to be divided. After all, in a country with only two parties, the coalitions that elect presidents are heterogeneous. On the one hand, a traditional wing of the Republican Party, which used to be called neoconservatives , exemplified by Senators Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell, defends a more offensive stance. They believe that the best way to protect the interests of the United States and its allies, and to assert American hegemony in the world, is for the US military to intervene throughout the world and, in particular, in the Middle East. This was the wing associated with the main figures of the George W. Bush administration and which initiated the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq at the beginning of the century.

On the other hand, there is a more recent wing that emerged with Trumpism, exemplified by ideologue Steve Bannon, congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene and journalist Tucker Carlson, which is completely isolationist. This wing, which Donald Trump himself has positioned himself on in all his electoral campaigns, is clearly against a new military intervention in the Middle East and against the financial and military effort of what he called “forever wars”. Isolationists believe that the United States should not get involved in the political and military problems of other parts of the world, even those of its allies. For Bannon, the main focus and guiding principle of US foreign policy should be the defence of North American territory and, to this end, they should invest in a kind of new Monroe Doctrine, where what matters is US action on the American continent – ​​from the Panama Canal and Central America to Greenland, via neighbouring Canada and Mexico.

American public opinion is now clear: Americans are both in favour of the need for a nuclear deal with Iran, but largely against direct US military intervention in the region. Note that, although to varying degrees, this is the majority opinion of Democrats, Independents and Republicans, which is not common on most other issues. Only 11% of Independents, 15% of Democrats and 23% of Republicans agree with US military involvement in the conflict between Israel and Iran. But, as Elizabeth Saunders has shown in her most recent book, The Insiders' Game: How Elites Make War and Peace , public opinion is not the deciding factor in most decisions about involvement in wars. Instead, what matters at these times is the competition between various elite factions, which do not always share the same opinion as the electorate, and which include members and advisers of the executive branch, legislators and the military. At this point, it is not possible to know who will prevail and what will motivate Donald Trump's own decision. Especially because not all motivations are completely rationalist.

In thewords of Francis Fukuyama, in one of his many reflections on the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan carried out by the United States at the beginning of the century, there are no shortcuts to building democracies, regimes and states in other parts of the world. This is why the American intellectual decided to write his two-volume work, The Origins of Political Order and Political Order and Political Decay . In political science, we know that there is no historical task more difficult and more enigmatic than the construction of political and social order through a state. The promise of regime change imposed from the outside in through military intervention has rarely worked. The most successful historical examples were, without a doubt, the construction of the German (Western), Japanese and Italian democracies in the post-Second World War period. But these democracies were built after a total defeat in a six-year world war and through a logistical, financial, bureaucratic and technical effort by the United States that has never been repeated. During the Cold War, the US and the Soviet Union helped establish dictatorial regimes around the world in order to defend their regional interests. However, since 1990, external interventions to change regimes have clearly failed. We may know how military intervention begins, but we never know how it ends and what new political order will follow.