As a presidential hopeful in November 2019, Joe Biden addressed the Jamal Khashoggi murder case and Yemen conflict. He vowed to treat Saudi Arabia as a global “pariah”. Biden was participating in a Democratic primary debate and speaking to a crowd at odds with then-President Donald Trump’s unconditional support for Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS). However, as president, he has made it clear that his administration has no plans to recognize the oil-rich kingdom as anything close to a pariah.

Last month, Saudi Arabia’s deputy defense minister Khalid bin Salman, who is MbS’s brother, paid a visit to Washington. This marked the highest-ranking envoy from Riyadh to visit the American capital in the post-Trump period. The minister met with national security adviser Jake Sullivan and other top US officials including Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, and US Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Colin Kahl.

The talks focused on strengthening the US-Saudi partnership. The two sides discussed various regional files such as Yemen, Iran, and Lebanon. Notably, because of increasingly advanced Houthi drone attacks against Saudi Arabia and Shi’a militias stepping up their drone strikes against US military bases in Iraq, Iran-backed groups’ regional conduct is of growing concern to both the US and Saudi Arabia.

Against the backdrop of Biden’s decision earlier this year to not impose sanctions on MbS over the US government’s findings on the Khashoggi file, some have criticized Biden for failing to uphold some of his campaign pledges. Khalid bin Salman’s warm reception by Biden administration officials led to some voices in the human rights community expressing outrage, especially given the fact that MbS’s brother is purportedly linked to the Khashoggi murder case.

In Biden’s first major foreign policy speech as president, he announced the end of US support for the Saudi-led military coalition’s “offensive” operations against Yemen’s Houthi rebels.

But the White House’s conclusion is that the US has way too many strategic interests in working with the Saudis to abandon this decades-old partnership over human rights issues. That said, Biden has not maintained Trump’s exact approach to working with Saudi Arabia.

The administration suspended the sales of GBU-39 small diameter and Paveway IV smart bombs to Riyadh. In Biden’s first major foreign policy speech as president, he announced the end of US support for the Saudi-led military coalition’s “offensive” operations against Yemen’s Houthi rebels. However, it is not clear how the administration exactly defines “offensive”, which has given Biden’s administration some wiggle room on this front.

Biden seeks to “convert [the US-Saudi relationship] from an all-weather partnership that mimics an alliance to a conditional partnership, which advances US interests and gives the US scope to pressure Saudi Arabia on human rights,” as Samuel Ramani, a doctoral researcher at Oxford University, told Politics Today. “Biden’s actions, such as releasing the Khashoggi report, announcing the suspension of US offensive support for the Saudi-led military intervention in Yemen and withdrawing some additional Patriot missile defense batteries from Saudi Arabia, reflect this aspirational shift.”

Although Biden is at odds with a growing number of more progressive members of his party who may view Riyadh as deserving “pariah” status, the current administration does not believe that the Washington Post writer’s killing or Saudi conduct in Yemen are reasons to walk away from the US’s partnership with the kingdom.

Given the extent to which MbS and Trump grew close, Biden saw a need for rhetoric that would set him apart from Trump.

In 2019/2020, when Biden was seeking the Democratic nomination, he made dramatic statements about Saudi Arabia for reasons pertaining to the Democratic Party’s politics. Given the extent to which MbS and Trump grew close, Biden saw a need for rhetoric that would set him apart from Trump. But it was not in accordance with any realistic expectation of his foreign policy. As Ramani explained, “Biden clearly overshot during the campaign with his label of Saudi Arabia as a pariah and those comments can be seen as a way of contrasting himself from Trump to appeal to the progressives in the Democratic Party.”

Ultimately, realpolitik has settled in. Biden has moved past rhetoric promising to “revitalize our national commitment to advancing human rights and democracy around the world”. From the Oval Office, Biden must deal with the practicalities of conducting foreign policy which, in Biden and virtually all his predecessors’ views, require maintaining relationships with governments that don’t share liberal or western values.

This is not only evident in the US-Saudi relationship. The Biden administration worked closely with Egypt amid the 11-day Gaza-Israel war of May 2021. Additionally, the Biden administration’s tepid response to the Tunisian president’s power grab last month tells us that even if the North African country becomes more authoritarian, the US leadership will in all probability still accommodate Kais Saied.

Moreover, even long before the Trump era, countless US presidents worked closely with an endless number of authoritarian leaders across the world, even some with more blood on their hands than MbS. It is fair to say that Biden’s approach is to be expected from any American president and his campaign rhetoric suggesting otherwise was not genuine.

But even if the White House does not see turning Saudi Arabia into a “pariah” as a viable option, more lawmakers in his party seem to think it is not only a viable option but also a strong moral obligation. The question of how much realpolitik should be shaping the Biden administration’s approach to Riyadh will likely become the source of more intense debate within the Democratic Party, especially after MbS ascends to the throne and becomes the King of Saudi Arabia.

As Psaki said, the administration is involved in “engagement” with Saudi Arabia’s leadership on a “counterpart-to-counterpart” basis. So, if there is a King Mohammed in Riyadh before January 2025, will Biden speak directly to him? It is safe to assume so.

Jonah Goldberg and Michael Ledeen have much in common. They are both writers and also cheerleaders for military interventions and, often, for frivolous wars. Writing in the conservative rag, The National Review, months before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, Goldberg paraphrased a statement which he attributed to Ledeen with reference to the interventionist U.S. foreign policy.

“Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business,” Goldberg wrote, quoting Ledeen.

Those like Ledeen, the neoconservative intellectual henchman type, often get away with this kind of provocative rhetoric for various reasons. American intelligentsias, especially those who are close to the center of power in Washington D.C., perceive war and military intervention as the foundation and baseline of their foreign policy analysis.

The utterances of such statements are usually conveyed within friendly media and intellectual platforms, where equally hawkish, belligerent audiences cheer and laugh at the war-mongering muses. In the case of Ledeen, the receptive audience was the hardline, neoconservative, pro-Israel American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

Predictably, AEI was one of the loudest voices urging for a war and invasion of Iraq prior to that calamitous decision by the George W. Bush Administration, which was enacted in March 2003.

Neoconservatism, unlike what the etymology of the name may suggest, was not necessarily confined to conservative political circles. Think tanks, newspapers and media networks that purport – or are perceived – to express liberal and even progressive thought today, like The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN, have dedicated much time and space to promoting an American invasion of Iraq as the first step of a complete U.S. geostrategic military hegemony in the Middle East.

Like the National Review, these media networks also provided unhindered space to so-called neoconservative intellectuals who molded American foreign policy based on some strange mix between their twisted take on ethics and morality and the need for the U.S. to ensure its global dominance throughout the 21st century. Of course, the neocons’ love affair with Israel has served as the common denominator among all individuals affiliated with this intellectual cult.

The main – and inconsequential – difference between Ledeen, for example, and those like Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, is that the former is brazen and blunt, while the latter is delusional and manipulative. For his part, Friedman also supported the Iraq war, but only to bring ‘democracy’ to the Middle East and to fight ‘terrorism’.

Two important events have summoned up these thoughts: U.S. President Joe Biden’s ‘historic’ trip to Cornwall, U.K., in June, to attend the 47th G7 summit and, two weeks later, the death of Donald Rumsfeld, who is widely depicted as “the architect of the Iraq war”. The tone struck by Biden throughout his G7 meetings is that ‘America is back’, another American coinage similar to the earlier phrase, the ‘great reset’ – meaning that Washington is ready to reclaim its global role that had been betrayed by the chaotic policies of former President Donald Trump.

The newest phrase – ‘America is back’ – appears to suggest that the decision to restore the U.S.’ uncontested global leadership is an exclusively American decision.

The newest phrase – ‘America is back’ – appears to suggest that the decision to restore the U.S.’ uncontested global leadership is, more or less, an exclusively American decision. Moreover, the term is not entirely new. In his first speech to a global audience at the Munich Security Conference on February 19, Biden repeated the phrase several times with obvious emphasis.

“America is back. I speak today as President of the United States, at the very start of my administration and I am sending a clear message to the world: America is back,” Biden said, adding that “the transatlantic alliance is back and we are not looking backward, we are looking forward together.”

Platitudes and wishful thinking aside, the U.S. cannot possibly return to a previous geopolitical standing, simply because Biden has made an executive decision to ‘reset’ his country’s traditional relationships with Europe – or anywhere else, either. Biden’s actual mission is to merely whitewash and restore his country’s tarnished reputation, marred not only by Trump, but also by years of fruitless wars, a crisis of democracy at home and abroad and an impending financial crisis resulting from the U.S.’ mishandling of the COVID19 pandemic.

Unfortunately for Washington, while it hopes to ‘look forward’ to the future, other countries have already staked claims to parts of the world where the U.S. has been forced to retreat, following two decades of a rudderless strategy that is fueled by the belief that firepower alone is sufficient to keep America aloft forever.

Though Biden was received warmly by his European hosts, Europe is likely to proceed cautiously. The continent’s geostrategic interests do not fall entirely in the American camp, as was once the case. Other new factors and power players have emerged in recent years. China is now the European bloc’s largest trade partner and Biden’s scare tactics warning of Chinese global dominance have not, seemingly, impressed the Europeans as the Americans had hoped.

Following Britain’s unceremonious exit from the EU bloc, the latter urgently needs to keep its share of the global economy as large as possible. The limping U.S. economy will hardly make the substantial deficit felt in Europe. Namely, the China-EU relationship is here to stay – and grow.

There is something else that makes the Europeans wary of whatever murky political doctrine Biden is promoting: dangerous American military adventurism.

The U.S. and Europe are the foundation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) which, since its inception in 1949, was almost exclusively used by the U.S. to assert its global dominance, first in the Korean Peninsula in 1950, then everywhere else.

Following the September 11 attacks, Washington used its hegemony over NATO to invoke Article 5 of its Charter, that of collective defense. The consequences were dire, as NATO members, along with the U.S., were embroiled in their longest wars ever, military conflicts that had no consistent strategy, let alone measurable goals. Now, as the U.S. licks its wounds as it leaves Afghanistan, NATO members, too, are leaving the devastated country without a single achievement worth celebrating. Similar scenarios are transpiring in Iraq and Syria, too.

Rumsfeld’s death on June 29, at the age of 88, should serve as a wake-up call to American allies if they truly wish to avoid the pitfalls and recklessness of the past. While much of the U.S. corporate media commemorated the death of a brutish war criminal with amiable non-committal language, some blamed him almost entirely for the Iraq fiasco. It is as if a single man had bent the will of the West-dominated international community to invade, pillage, torture and destroy entire countries. If so, then Rumsfeld’s death should usher in an exciting new dawn of collective peace, prosperity and security. This is not the case.

The Trump administration’s tenure is over, and yet there has been no diplomatic effort to relegate its legacy to the past, much less the political will to overturn the damaging policies which will reap serious repercussions as a result of the Abraham Accords.

While the international community did its best to portray a rift with the US under former President Donald Trump, the likelihood is that world leaders participated in a debacle that was revealed when the normalization agreements between the UAE and Israel were announced. Without any further squabbling over the ramifications of the “Deal of the Century,” the UN rushed to praise the deal and world leaders followed suit. At last, upon the foundations of Arab countries normalizing relations with Israel, the two-state compromise could once again take center-state, albeit only in diplomatic jargon.

Trump would soon be gone, the “Deal of the Century” would be treated merely as a past interlude in the status quo, and the only legacy that mattered – the Abraham Accords – brought Arab countries on a par with the rest of the world when it comes to trade and economic agreements with Israel.

To maintain relevance, and equally to assert the supremacy of the Abraham Accords in terms of making Palestine diplomatically and politically insignificant, former senior adviser Jared Kushner launched the “Abraham Accords Institute for Peace” earlier this month, to promote and strengthen the normalization agreement. Alongside Kushner, former White House envoy Avi Berkowitz, Israeli-American businessman Haim Saban, and ambassadors from the UAE and Bahrain have been included in the line-up, along with Israel’s Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi.

According to reports, the institute will “provide analysis of the benefits of normalization and the potential benefits additional Arab countries can receive if they join the Abraham Accords.”

With a departing legacy embraced by the international community and the incoming US administration, Kushner and his accomplices are not going anywhere soon. US President Joe Biden’s policy on Israel and Palestine was described as undecided and vague since taking office, yet it is becoming clearer that the current administration will make meagre concessions to Palestinians in return for retaining the advances awarded to Israel by Trump.

Biden’s recent phone conversation with the UAE’s Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed Al Nayhan stressed the importance of the normalization agreements with Israel and “expressed his full support for strengthening and expanding these arrangements.” While the initial announcement of the UAE-Israel normalization agreements centered upon the suspension of annexation, this premise has long been forgotten by all parties concerned. The agreements will strengthen Israel’s position in the region, allow for increasing US influence on countries signing the accords and, importantly for Israel, marginalize Palestine to the point of oblivion.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spent the entire years of Trump’s tenure boasting how Arab states no longer viewed Palestine as a precondition to normalizing relations with Israel. The Abraham Accords have proved Netanyahu right, exposing how the Palestinian Authority’s reliance on symbolic rhetorical support ultimately played no role in mobilizing the region for Palestine.

Last year, Ashkenazi remarked that the annexation plans were replaced by the normalization agreements – a view which former US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman countered at every given opportunity. “We said in our statement that sovereignty will be postponed, and this does not mean that it has been abolished, but rather that it has stopped. It has been suspended for a year, maybe more, but it has not been cancelled.”

Clearly, the US and Israel are prioritizing economic benefits and diplomatic allegiances over political rights. The discourse puts the international community at ease – after all, Israel was legitimized decades ago and has never been treated as a colonial project expanding over Palestinian territory. Any clauses binding Israel to human rights in trade and economic deals are mere embellishment on paper. In a way, the Abraham Accords are only a novelty because Arab states have abandoned all pretense of supporting Palestine.

Otherwise, the normalization agreements follow a tried and tested trajectory which the international community finds suitable, conventional and, most importantly, affirms the UN’s distortion of Palestinians as a humanitarian project, rather than a dispossessed people seeking liberation and self-determination.

Thus, while the Accords are a derivative of the “Deal of the Century”, they also provided a link for the international community to reconcile with the Israeli annexation of Palestinian territory.

Kushner’s institute may focus on attracting other Arab leaders to normalize relations with Israel and keep enough distance from direct influence when it comes to the politics determining a purported solution for Palestine. However, it will also lessen the burden for the international community and the US when it comes to dealing with Palestinian rights.

The less support Palestinians have in the region, the more the cause is lost in terms of visibility. With Arab leaders blatantly aligned with Israel, less caution is needed when it comes to dictating the Palestinian people’s steps within the context of the two-state compromise and the land loss it has perpetrated.

Biden has come face to face with the ramifications of colonial violence quite early in his tenure as president. The bombing of Gaza following Hamas’s retaliation at the Israeli violence against Palestinians in Jerusalem and Sheikh Jarrah will, ultimately, drive Biden towards insisting upon the two-state compromise as the only solution, while protecting Israel’s security narrative in the process. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki’s latest briefing reaffirmed Biden’s position on the two-state politics.

It is safe to say that neither Biden nor Kushner would have envisaged the Palestinian collective uprising against Israel’s colonial violence. However, the Palestinian people’s effort is being misrepresented and countered internationally by Israel’s security narrative.

The Abraham Accords and the two-state politics also prioritize and protect such rhetoric. If the US administration fails to challenge the legacy of the normalization agreements, it will be giving Trump and the institute ample space for influence, which creates a degree of complicity that was already hinted at in the early stages when Biden reassured the international community that the accords will be given priority. Clearly, a change of presidency has not brought any change of political will.

The U.S. covert war against NATO ally Turkey gained a new dimension when U.S. President Joe Biden used the word “genocide” for the mass deportation of Ottoman Armenian subjects in 1915. Why did Biden add another thorny issue to the bilateral relations between Washington and Ankara, which are already at a low, at a time when he wants to contain Russia’s and China’s increasing influence? How will Washington’s unilateral actions against Turkey effect that policy? And, most importantly, should Turkey consider Biden’s statement as a serious affair?

The horrific events that took place in 1915, during the last years of the Ottoman Empire, and how to identify them has been a problem between the U.S. and Turkey for more than three decades. Each year, on April 24, all eyes turn to Washington to see if the U.S. administration will declare that a “genocide” was perpetrated against Ottoman Armenians in Eastern Anatolia.

Previous U.S. administrations have not used the term genocide in formal statements amid concerns over damaging relations with Turkey, a NATO ally. But this year, President Joe Biden became the first U.S. president to recognize the horrific events in 1915 officially as a “genocide,” risking another potential fracture with Turkey. In his statement, Biden said the intention was “not to cast blame but to ensure that what happened is never repeated.” He also referred to Istanbul as “Constantinople” which also drew criticism, since the latter is a word Greeks use for Turkey’s biggest city.

Reports in the U.S. media quoted diplomatic sources saying that Biden’s words “our aim is to not cast blame” can be understood to mean that he does not want to hold Turkey responsible.

But this is not the case…

The issue is highly sensitive. Turkey does not deny the suffering of Armenians in WWI. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan reiterated this in a letter to the Armenian Patriarch of Turkey and to Armenia, and called once again for the formation of a joint commission of historians and academics to analyze the national archives of Turkey, Armenia, and the related countries. Unfortunately, Turkey’s calls have not been accepted by Armenia as of today.

In 2016, Kamala Harris had reaffirmed her commitment to proper recognition and a resolution for the “Armenian genocide.”

There are many ways to explain why Biden used the word “genocide.” It is clear that Vice President Kamala Harris and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were fully committed to the recognition of that so-called genocide. For the record, we should keep in mind that Kamala Harris met with members of the Armenian National Committee of America – Western Region (ANCA-WR) as attorney general of California when her campaign for U.S. Senate kicked into high gear in 2016, where she reaffirmed her commitment to proper recognition and a resolution for the “Armenian genocide.”

Given that an international judicial mechanism should decide what happened in 1915, documents, books, testimonies, and archives are the most reliable sources to base this decision on. Well-known historians like Bernard Lewis, Stanford Shaw, Heath Lowry, J.C. Hurewitz and Justin McCarthy openly stated that what happened in 1915 cannot be described as “genocide” once the archives and testimonies of the Armenians and the Ottoman Muslims are studied in detail without prejudice.

Documents and books like The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun) has Nothing to Do Anymore written by Hovhannes Kajaznuni, the first prime minister of Armenia, are why Armenia does not want to open its archives for research and why the Armenian diaspora prefers lobbying and narratives over academic panels and historical documents.

As a co-founder of the Dashnaktsutyun Party, Kajaznuni presented his views about what really happened in 1915 and how they were deluded by the Russians and the British, during the party’s congress held in Bucharest in 1923 as a manifesto His statements shine a spotlight on the historical background behind the Ottomans’ decision to relocate Ottoman Armenian citizens. He said, “The dream of an Armenia that spans from sea to sea is the reason why we rebelled. We are the cause of the incidents. We were duped. The relocation implemented by the Turks was an appropriate measure. We should not look for a culprit, it is us. We lived together of centuries, now we can’t even look the Turks in the face.”

These confessions caused a great uproar among the members of the Dashnaktsutyun Party and almost all the copies of Kajaznuni’s book were collected from the libraries across Europe in the late 1920s. In 1955, in New York, the book was republished in English by the Armenian Information Service, this time excluding his original words.

There are many documents about the events of 1915 that should be brought to the attention of the public on both sides. The formation of a joint committee of historians is the only just, reliable, and humane way to define what really happened. Any evaluation without a legal landmark such as Biden’s unilateral decision, will only make things worse.

President Biden’s agenda will have to focus overwhelmingly on U.S. domestic politics given the pressing challenges surrounding COVID-19 and the economic fallout from this unprecedented public health crisis. His administration has underlined their commitment to a foreign policy that better reflects the concerns and priorities of America’s middle class.

There is much debate about what this “foreign policy for the middle class” will look like, but you can be sure that the administration will be focusing on ending the “forever wars” and attempting to more substantively pivot away from the Middle East toward Asia and competition with China, a goal that proved elusive during previous administrations.

The Biden administration is not seeking to end U.S. engagement in the Middle East, but rather to limit the U.S. military presence in the region and to engage in greater multilateral diplomacy. The U.S.-led regional security architecture that has been in place for decades is no longer sustainable, and the new administration is eager to cultivate partnerships to increase burden sharing and encourage regional stability, while also assuring that its own strategic interests are still protected.

Biden’s Foreign Policy Priorities

The Biden administration is working on reinvigorating America’s State Department, which suffered from an unprecedented level of resignations and long-term vacancies during the Trump administration, and on cultivating greater multilateral cooperation with allies that were often disregarded over the last four years.

Biden officials speak much more of human rights and democratic norms, in stark contrast to Trump, but it’s unclear how much of this will lead to a substantive realignment of policy priorities in the Middle East. Sanctions over human rights violations are already being implemented, but they rarely target the major violators in conflicts and human rights violations, especially not heads of state.

The conflict in Libya will constitute a significant policy priority in the Transatlantic relationship between the United States and Europe.

Regarding Middle East priorities, Biden officials have laid out very clear priorities, namely returning to the Iran Nuclear Deal and supporting conflict resolution efforts in Yemen, both of which Biden’s teams are working vigorously to advance. This translates to a significant strategic focus on regional security in the Gulf and on Iranian influence in conflict theaters like Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

North Africa will not feature high on the list of priorities. However, the conflict in Libya will constitute a significant policy priority in the Transatlantic relationship between the United States and Europe.

The United States maintains important bilateral relations with foreign patrons on both sides of the Libyan divide, namely Turkey, UAE, Egypt, France, and Russia, and is working to apply pressure on these actors to withdraw from Libya’s conflict by pushing all parties to respect the UN arms embargo, which the UN Panel of Experts recently argued was “totally ineffective.”

Libya offers a crucial milieu where the Biden administration can put its commitment toward multilateralism and diplomacy into action.

Former acting UN envoy on Libya and veteran American diplomat Stephanie Williams stated that an estimated 20,000 foreign fighters were present in Libya. Some reports indicate that some countries which have mercenaries in Libya are now planning to withdraw them in line with the current reconciliation process.

Libya offers a crucial milieu where the Biden administration can put its commitment toward multilateralism and diplomacy into action. This conflict also represents an opportunity to reinvigorate the Transatlantic partnership, which was damaged during the Trump administration.

Biden has emphasized time and time again that the United States needs to repair its ties with key European allies, and supporting conflict resolution efforts in Libya is a key modality through which to pursue this policy goal. Libya is at the top of the agenda in talks between the United States and European allies like Germany and France.

The Libyan conflict is in many ways more pressing for America’s European allies, who are preoccupied by concerns of regional instability, counterterrorism, migration, and Russian presence at NATO’s backdoor. The internationalized nature of the Libyan war is also linked with other regional tensions along Europe’s southern border, namely the tensions between Turkey, Greece, and other European and Middle East powers over maritime rights and resources in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Beyond supporting the tenuous ceasefire and political transition in Libya, the Biden administration can offer more humanitarian support and coordination for the estimated 574,000 foreign migrants, 316,000 internally displaced persons, and 44,000 refugees in Libya. The outbreak of COVID19, on top of the political instability and violence, hurts these vulnerable communities especially hard. It will take a long-term commitment from the international community to help rebuild Libya’s fragmented and under-resourced institutions, not to mention to ensure that the ceasefire holds.

Libyan experts have laid out a host of economic, political, and security challenges facing the Government of National Unity. Already the optimism surrounding the parliament’s approval of this interim government has been tamed by several high-profile political assassinations in both Benghazi and Tripoli, yet another indication of the urgent need for security sector reform.

Conflict Resolution Across the Region

Moving forward the Biden administration needs to maintain its active diplomatic efforts in Libya and work as closely as possible with its European allies on supporting the ceasefire and the political transition, as well as on pressuring foreign actors to withdraw from the conflict. This will be a difficult feat. The U.S. administration should take this a step further by helping to push the Libya Stabilization Act through Congress.

Robert Ford, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria, said in a webinar that the United States under the Biden administration could deploy more troops to Eastern Syria, that withdrawal of troops is not subject to consideration, and that there will be a continued U.S. military presence in Syria. “There would be a continuation in discussing Syria, but a minor change can be witnessed by this new administration due to increased sanctions on Damascus.

The withdrawal of American troops can hurt the credibility of the U.S.,” he said. Ford went on to say that a slight change can also be seen regarding the refugee border policies as during Trump’s time in office not many refugees were accepted into the U.S., while Iraq and Syria will not be evaluated separately during the Biden presidency.

The webinar was hosted by SETA Washington D.C. on February 26, 2021 and examined the Biden administration’s possible policy towards Syria. Questions such as whether Biden would continue to interfere in Syria like his predecessors Trump and Obama or he would step back were among the topics of discussion.

The recent U.S. attack targeting pro-Iranian Shia militia in Syria was discussed by a number of experts, namely Robert Ford, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria; Dima Moussa, the vice-president of the Syrian National Coalition; and Wael Al-Zayat, the CEO of Emgage Foundation.

Dima Moussa asserted that uncertainty can be seen in Biden’s approach to the Syrian conflict as the Syrian issue is not present on the president’s priority list. She added that as far as the recent U.S. air strike against Syria is concerned, “an inheritance from Trump is seen for now.” She concluded, “We should wait a little bit more.”

Wael Al-Zayat started by noting that it is dangerous to make predictions pertaining to this issue which has been continuing for the last 10 years. “The U.S. again will spend a lot of time discussing the Syrian conflict under Biden’s administration. America’s connection with the SDF [Syrian Democratic Forces] will continue.

Robert Ford said that it would be better if Russia took control of the eastern part of Syria because Russia is closer to Damascus compared to Washington.

There might be a comprehensive talk between the U.S. and Assad’s regime. Dialogue between the U.S. and Turkey related to the Idlib issue would be puzzling. Bilateral dialogue between Turkey and the U.S. is inevitable for the sake of the Syrian victims because they consider both countries as their protectors.”

Robert Ford said that it would be better if Russia took control of the eastern part of Syria because Russia is closer to Damascus compared to Washington; that the KGB (the USSR’s Committee for State Security) and its successor, the Russian intelligence services, have been in close cooperation with Syria; and that the Iran-Syria relations have been closer than those of the U.S. and Syria. He added that that talks between Turkey and the U.S. are necessary.

She added that a solution is not possible by military means but only by political ones. Iran, the EU, and other regional actors should convince Assad to enter negotiations. According to Moussa, an international consensus needs to be reached, Russia needs to be a part of this coordinated effort, and a thorough policy plan should be introduced by Biden.

Al-Zayat clarified that a humanitarian approach should be the Biden administration’s top priority.

Al-Zayat clarified that a humanitarian approach should be the Biden administration’s top priority. The most important issue is how to define Syria’s national interests. Civilian protection is necessary in Syria, he noted, adding that the U.S. should not be spending its budget on Syria. The United States is already facing multiple problems like COVID-19, climate change, social justice, etc. “That’s why Biden should be focusing on eradicating other problems first, and then start thinking about the Syrian conflict,” he said.

Ford expressed his belief that the U.S. should not deploy troops to Syria without a clear-cut mission. He claimed that only Syrians can resolve the conflict because it started between their government and themselves. Ford clarified that he does not think that Turkey, Russia, or Iran can resolve this issue and neither can the U.S. An inclusive national plan by Syrians for Syrians is needed. He claimed that “Joe Biden has an incredible talent. He can manage situations very well, if he wishes…Biden will be deeply involved in the military confrontation in Syria.”

Al-Zayat concluded by going against Ford’s proposal, adding that A Syrian plan does not seem realistic because several sects are present there and they do not want to solve this conflict by themselves. There is no doubt that the conflict emerged between Syrians…; however, they are no longer its major component.

As Joe Biden has not been in power for long, it is difficult to say anything certain regarding his approach to the Syrian conflict. Predictions can be made but uncertainty is bound to remain. However, before taking any step for the resolution of the conflict, including imposing new sanctions or increasing the number of troops, the U.S. must take into account the current problems, the hopes, and the expectations of the Syrian people – both those living inside and outside of Syria.

A historic presidential election was held in the United States on November 3, 2020. The election campaigns, the topics discussed, and the bickering between the candidates for the presidency were considered by many unprecedented. Joe Biden won the race and has formed one of the most ethnically diverse administrations in United States’ history.

The U.S. 2020 presidential election was exceptional in many different ways. The new ways of casting votes due to COVID-19, the controversial statements by Donald Trump on the results of the election, and the recount of votes in critical states all made this election different. The Trump administration left its mark on U.S. domestic politics and foreign policy, also leaving behind the highest number of resignations in U.S. administrative history. His administration was also pre-dominantly white – like all administrations before him.

To erase the legacy of the Trump administration, Joe Biden has taken great care in relation to the ethnic diversity of his team. Many Republicans are dissatisfied with his choices. These reactions stem from the fact that to some extent the political opposition nurtures a white-supremacist discourse on the issue of the ethnic diversity of the new administration.

To overhaul the Trump legacy, President Biden pledged to make his cabinet one of the most diverse in the country’s history. It was U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris who first caught the attention of far-right groups. Harris is the daughter of an immigrant family and is of African American and South Asian descent, with a Jamaican father and an Indian mother. She is not only the first woman to be elected as vice president in the United States – she is also the first woman of color to hold this position.

Lloyd Austin, the U.S. defense secretary, became the first African American to be appointed to this position following Senate approval on January 22, 2021. The Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, of Cuban heritage, has drawn attention as the first homeland secretary with a migrant background. His nomination was approved by the Senate with 56-43 votes.

Deb Haaland is expected to be appointed as the secretary of interior in the Biden cabinet. Haaland will be the first Native American to serve as secretary of interior.

Sameera Fazili is a Muslim face of the Biden administration. She has roots in Kashmir, India. Fazili’s parents immigrated to the United States and she served as a lawyer in her earlier career. She has been elected for the position of deputy director of the National Economic Council with a focus on manufacturing, innovation, and domestic competition. Fazili is an advocate of the rights of the Kashmiri people against Indian oppression.

Vice President Harris’s thoughts and plans to have more restrictions on far-right groups’ ownership of weapons make such groups feel worried. Upon taking office, Harris has been subjected to criticisms by far-right groups over regulations to be imposed on some arms manufacturers. The regulation will introduce new laws that restrict the use of weapons and impose a ban on automatic weapons.

Immigrants and ethnic groups constitute the majority of the U.S. population. Currently, people of more than 200 different ethnic origins live in the United States. U.S. citizens of migrant backgrounds and ethnic origins are in favor of the presence of persons deemed fit to represent them in the U.S. administration. The representation of citizens belonging to different ethnic groups is important to convey their voices in the higher echelons of power.

Biden’s decisions show that he wants to ensure ethnic diversity in the bureaucracy and attract small ethnic groups. He might also say he is targeting votes in the next election.

The Biden government states that despite protests, which started with the Capitol Hill riot by right-wing and white supremacist groups such as the Proud Boys and Three Percenters (who are now targeting his cabinet choices), it will preserve the diversity of its cabinet.

The “Let’s Rebuild America” slogan is at the heart of this policy of diversity. The Biden administration may open new doors for ethnically diverse people in the following years, including, among others, providing opportunities for immigrants to acquire U.S. citizenship. More importantly, these efforts are likely also to include combating the rise of white supremacism.

That’s certainly our goal and our intention.” This was the non-committal answer given by White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki, when, on February 12, she was asked by a reporter whether the new Joe Biden Administration intends to shut down the notorious Guantánamo Bay Prison by the end of the president’s first term in office.

Psaki’s answer may have seemed reassuring, that the untold suffering experienced by hundreds of men in this American gulag – many of whom were surely innocent – would be finally coming to an end. However, considering the history of Guantánamo and the trail of broken promises by the Barack Obama Administration, the new administration’s pledge is hardly encouraging.

Compare the new language with that of Obama’s impassioned diatribes about humanity, justice and American values, which he utilized whenever he spoke of Guantánamo. “Gitmo has become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law,” Obama said at a speech at the National Defense University in May 2013.

Enamored with his every word, Obama’s audience clapped with enthusiasm. When he delivered that particular speech, Obama was then serving his second term in office. He already had ample opportunity to shut down the prison which operated with no international monitoring and entirely outside the realms of international and US laws.

Obama is likely to be remembered for his words, not his actions. Not only did he fail to shut down the prison which was erected by his predecessor, George W. Bush, in 2002, but the Guantánamo industry continued to thrive during his terms.

For example, in his speech, Obama made reference to the high cost of “a hundred and fifty million dollars each year to imprison 166 people.” According to the New Yorker, reporting in 2016, Guantánamo’s budget had morphed to “$445 million last year,” when Obama was still in office.

Yet, as the budget grew by leaps and bounds, the number of Guantánamo prisoners dwindled. Currently, there are only 40 prisoners still residing in that massive edifice of metal, concrete and barbed wire located at the eastern tip of Cuba, built atop a piece of land ‘leased’ by the US in 1903.

According to the New Yorker, reporting in 2016, Guantánamo’s budget had morphed to “$445 million last year,” when Obama was still in office.

It is easy to conclude that the US government keeps the prison open only to avoid international accountability and, arguably, to extract information by torture, an act that is inconsistent with American laws. But this cannot be it. On the one hand, the entire wars against Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal under international law.

Such a fact hardly stopped the US and its allies from savagely invading, humiliating and torturing entire populations with no regard whatsoever to legal or moral arguments.

In fact, many American officials and members of Congress at the time used the Abu Ghraib scandal in 2004 as an opportunity to whitewash and rebrand American crimes elsewhere and to present the misconduct in this Iraqi prison as if an isolated incident involving “a few bad apples”.

The ‘few bad apples’ argument, made by G. W. Bush was, more or less, the same logic utilized by Obama when he championed the closure of Guantánamo. Indeed, both Presidents insisted that neither Abu Ghraib nor Guantánamo should be made out to represent what America is really all about.

“Is this who we are?” Obama animatedly and passionately asked, as he made a case in favor of the closure of Guantánamo, speaking as if a human rights advocate, not a Commander-in-Chief who had direct authority to shut down the entire facility. The truth is that the Abu Ghraib tortures were not ‘a few bad apples’ and Guantánamo is, indeed, a microcosm of exactly what the US is, or has become.

The truth is that the Abu Ghraib tortures were not “a few bad apples.” Guantánamo is a microcosm of exactly what the US is or has become.

From Bagram, Afghanistan, to Abu Ghraib, Iraq, to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to the many ‘floating prisons’ –  news of which was leaked by US media in 2014 – the US government continues to make a mockery of international and humanitarian laws. Many American officials, who genuinely advocate the closure of Guantánamo, refuse to acknowledge that the prison is a symbol of their country’s intransigence and refuse to accept that, like any other country in the world, it is accountable to international law.

This lack of accountability has exceeded the US government’s insistence to ‘act alone’, as in to launch wars without international mandates. One US Administration after another has also made it clear that, under no circumstances, would they allow accused war criminals to be investigated, let alone stand trial, before the International Criminal Court (ICC). The message here is that even America’s ‘bad apples’ can potentially walk free, regardless of the heinousness of their crimes.

Just months after the Trump Administration imposed sanctions on ICC judges to punish them for the potential investigations of US crimes in Afghanistan, it freed the convicted criminals who carried out horrific crimes in Iraq. On December 22, Trump pardoned four American mercenaries who belonged to the private military firm, Blackwater. These convicted murderers were involved in the killing of 14 civilians, including two children, in Baghdad in 2007.

What became known as the ‘Nisour Square massacre’ was another example of whitewashing, as government officials and mainstream media, though expressing outrage at the unlawful killing, insisted that the massacre was an isolated episode. The fact that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, mostly civilians, were killed as a result of the American invasion seems irrelevant in the country’s skewed logic in its never-ending ‘war on terror’.

Whether Biden fulfills his promise of shutting down Guantánamo or not, little will change if the US remains committed to its condescending attitude towards international law and to its undeserved view of itself as a country that exists above the universal rights of everyone else.

That said, Guantánamo, on its own, is a crime against humanity and there can never be any justification to rationalize why hundreds of people are held indefinitely, without trial, without due process, without international observers and without ever seeing their families and loved ones. The explanation often offered by the pro-Guantánamo pundits is that the prison inmates are dangerous men. If that was, indeed, the case, why were these supposed criminals not allowed to see their day in court?

According to a report by Amnesty International published in May 2020, of the 779 men who were taken to that facility, “only seven have been convicted.” Worse, five of them were convicted “as a result of pre-trial agreements under which they pleaded guilty, in return for the possibility of release from the base.” According to the rights group, such a trial by ‘military commission’ “did not meet fair trial standards”.