Biden’s third war in three years makes this the worst foreign policy ever

At every turn, President Biden has chosen a path that prioritizes talk over action, believing that countries saying they are for something is the same as actually achieving that something, and has failed to deliver actual progress while the world continues to burn.

This weekend, President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. completed a tragic trifecta the likes of which might be unprecedented in the annals of American history.  The breakout of a conflict between Israel and Palestine marks the third overseas war in three years on his watch following the ongoing war in Ukraine and the Taliban take over of Afghanistan.  Many might not include Afghanistan in their own list of new wars, but the escalation that occurred while President Biden was Commander in Chief was unseen in the lead up to our ignominious withdrawal, ultimately resulting in the first US combat deaths in the region in more than a year.  Some might wonder why nothing approaching this level of death, destruction, and the overall breakdown of the international order did not occur while President Trump was in office the four years previously, but we cannot, of course, prove a negative.  Perhaps President Trump simply got lucky and it is truly better to be lucky than good.  We can, however, posit why international crises appear to be multiplying under President Biden and why, at least as what passes for his foreign policy is currently constituted, things are unlikely to change.  Each of these wars is unique, at least in some part caused by various regional and historical factors that no President has complete control over, but there are also similarities between the three, beginning with a failure of intelligence followed by a failure of imagination marked by substituting talk for action.  Contrary to the conventional wisdom, Afghanistan was not doomed before President Biden began completing the drawdown of US troops, nor was the Taliban on the march in the early days of 2021.  As late as July of that year, President Biden and his team insisted that the Afghanistan government, the one we cultivated for two decades and funded with billions of dollars in aid and armed, was not in immediate danger of collapse.  “No, it is not” inevitable that the Taliban will take over the country, President Biden himself said at the time.  “Because you have the Afghanistan troops — 300,000 well-equipped (troops), as well equipped as any army in the world, and an air force against something like 75,000 Taliban. It is not inevitable.”  He added, “The jury is still out. But the likelihood there’s going to be a Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely.”  The Taliban, of course, went on to sweep across the entire country in barely a month, toppling the government and forcing the United States to evacuate.  Either our intelligence was wrong, or our leadership was lying.  Regardless, the entire might of the United States government lacked the strategic and military acumen to halt a convoy of beat up old pickup trucks driving across the desert towards Kabul.

Similarly, the lead up to the war in Ukraine the following year was predicated on the belief that any conflict would be exceedingly short with Russia rapidly overtaking the smaller, weaker country.  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, General Mark Milley, told Congress Russia would conquer Kyiv in less than 72 hours in February of 2022.  As reported by Fox News, “Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.  Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.”  This is likely why President Biden himself provided tacit approval for Russia to conduct a “minor incursion” into disputed territories while doing absolutely nothing meaningful in the lead up to the full scale invasion except for bloviating about sanctions and the strength of the free world.  It’s hard to believe, but he actually said in public, “It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and we end up having to fight about what to do and not do.”  It was only after Russian troops were unable to rapidly advance that President Biden and our allies in the West changed course and declared Ukraine the fulcrum of the democratic world, whose fate is tied to every freedom loving country everywhere, unleashing ineffective sanctions and continuing to escalate arms shipments in an attempt to thwart the in-progress Russian invasion.  Even in the early months of war, a peace deal appeared possible where Russia would maintain control of the disputed provinces in exchange for an end to hostilities and an acknowledgement of the territorial integrity of the rest of Ukraine.  In retrospect, it seems obvious President Biden was prepared to cede at least some of the country to Russia and it was only when Russia didn’t advance as quickly as our intelligence services believed, that the goalposts were moved to either a complete defeat of the Russian invasion or even regime change in Russia itself.  Otherwise, it seems clear to me at least that we would have moved sufficient resources into Ukraine before the invasion rather than continually playing catch up afterwards.  Regardless, there is no doubt that our intelligence on Russia’ odds and speed of success was not accurate and as the conflict approaches its second year, there is no exit strategy, or indeed any strategy at all except more of the same, as though another couple of rockets shipped to Ukraine will fundamentally alter the dynamic.  The rhetoric, of course, continues apace, inexplicably transforming a regional conflict we have no plans to win into an existential battle.

Hamas’ incursion into Israel last weekend was by far the most dramatic intelligence failure yet, followed by the most heinous atrocities we have seen in recent years.  Somehow, a poorly armed militia in an urban area largely without running water managed to stockpile thousands of primitive missiles and transport itself over both ground and air (using paragliders because they do not have planes) without the slightest warning on the 50th anniversary of the start of another war in the region.  Israel and the entire Western world were taken completely by surprise, resulting in close to a thousand fatalities, thousands of injured, and hostages in the hands of the terrorists.  The reports of the level of carnage are almost unreadable:  Dead bodies paraded through the streets, innocent people gunned down for no reason except being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and – it shudders me to even have to write this – 40 dead babies, some with their heads cut off in their cribs.  Israeli Major General Itai Veruv guided reporters through a bloody scene at a Kibbutz yesterday. “You see the babies, the mothers, the fathers, in their bedrooms, in their protection rooms — and how the terrorist kills them. It’s not a war, it’s not a battlefield. It’s a massacre,” he added. The full details are not known yet, except the death toll keeps rising, and will continue to rise as Israel strikes back with what has been promised to be unprecedented action.  The United States, obviously, is not culpable or directly involved in this conflict, but to put how global these challenges are in perspective, there are reports that the weapons in use by Hamas terrorists were shipped into Gaza from Afghanistan, and so a loss in one war fuels another.  Further, how this happened without any inkling reaching either the leadership in the United States or Israel remains a mystery.

While President Biden is not to blame for the actions of Hamas directly, a closer examination reveals a fundamental flaw in his foreign policy along with a complete lack of preparedness that is allowing the world to spiral out of control.  Intelligence failures are one thing.  The appearance of weakness combined with a fundamentally flawed strategy and an inability to find creative solutions to international challenges is quite another.  The Middle East exemplifies this phenomenon in action, where for reasons that defy rational explanation, President Biden was simultaneously pursuing closer relations with both Iran, the chief state sponsor of Hamas, and Saudi Arabia, the two most dominant players in the Muslim world, who just happen to be mortal enemies.  Perhaps even worse, both policies were inherited from the predecessors, but at least Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump were wise enough not to pursue these mutually exclusive approaches simultaneously.  President Obama championed re-approachment of Iran via a nuclear deal that would slow their development of nuclear weapons in exchange for lifting sanctions.  The thinking was simple:  Bringing Iran into the international community would ease tensions, and ultimately provide us with enough influence to stop them from supporting terrorist groups like Hamas.  Critics were quick to point out that Iran showed no inclination to change their behavior, nor would the deal prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons, but at least it made some sense, strategically speaking.

President Trump pursued a different approach, believing that resolving tensions between Israel and other countries in the region would reduce the influence of Iran.  He scrapped President Obama’s deal and forged the Abraham Accords, normalizing relations between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan, and beginning discussions with Saudi Arabia to do the same.  Once again, the thinking was simple:  The Palestinian problem was primarily the result of Iran and Lebanon funding Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.  Binding Israel to the broader Middle East would isolate Iran, reduce their ability to fund terror, and bring additional, peaceful pressure to resolve disputes between Israel and Palestine.  Critics were quick to point out that this approach had never been attempted, and the tensions between Israel and Palestine would effectively be deprioritized, even allowed to simmer while broader changes in the region took place.  At the same time, there was little doubt the approach had an underlying philosophy and a strategic direction, and was showing signs of success while President Trump was still in office.   It was necessarily President Biden’s prerogative to pursue either policy or even another one altogether when he became Commander in Chief, but attempting to do both at the same time has never made any sense whatsoever.  Iran and Saudi Arabia are regional adversaries.  Engaging the one will no doubt be seen at the expense of the other, and it shouldn’t have taken a foreign policy visionary to assume Iran would do everything in their power to prevent the normalization of relations between two countries they perceive as enemies.  Given that some concessions to the Palestinians were said to be required for a deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel, it should have been obvious Iran would rely on Hamas as its agent to ensure that didn’t happen.  Couple this with Saudi Arabian discontent that Iran might be strengthened and armed with nuclear weapons, plus President Joe Biden himself attacking Saudi Arabia’s de facto leader followed by begging for oil, and it becomes a wonder the region did not descend into chaos sooner.  Much has also been made of the administration’s recent $6 billion deal with Iran over the exchange of hostages as well, and whatever the impact, it seems obvious they are feeling emboldened rather than contained.

Incredibly, President Biden’s inexplicable deference to Iran in particular continues even after the unprecedented attack this weekend.  It took The Wall Street Journal barely 24 hours to report on Iranian involvement in almost every aspect of the incursion, as was obvious given the scale and coordination alone.  “Iranian security officials helped plan Hamas’s Saturday surprise attack on Israel and gave the green light for the assault at a meeting in Beirut last Monday, according to senior members of Hamas and Hezbollah, another Iran-backed militant group,” Summer Said reported.  “Officers of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had worked with Hamas since August to devise the air, land and sea incursions—the most significant breach of Israel’s borders since the 1973 Yom Kippur War—those people said.  Details of the operation were refined during several meetings in Beirut attended by IRGC officers and representatives of four Iran-backed militant groups, including Hamas, which holds power in Gaza, and Hezbollah, a Shiite militant group and political faction in Lebanon, they said.”  Secretary of State Antony Blinken, meanwhile, insisted, “We have not yet seen evidence that Iran directed or was behind this particular attack, but there is certainly a long relationship,” whatever that means given that Hamas owes almost its entire existence to Iran in the first place.  To the extent that there is a relationship, Hamas is a proxy that wouldn’t exist otherwise, hence former President Trump’s desire to strangle Iran with sanctions first and foremost.  From what I can tell, this is a strong indication that the Biden Administration does not view this enfolding war as an impediment to their Iran rapprochement strategy, anymore than the discovery earlier this year that the lead US negotiator was in fact an Iranian agent and it appears other top members of the US government have been secretly communicating with Iran. (Yes, both happened with little coverage and no action from the administration.)  President Biden, as recently as yesterday, implored Iran and Lebanon not to engage in Hamas’ war on Israel, strongly suggesting he does not see or want to acknowledge the obvious relationships already in play.

Whatever the case, a third war is now under way on President Biden’s watch and whether he shoulders some or all of the blame, it is clear that we are witnessing a complete breakdown in foreign policy, literally the opposite of what we should hope would occur.  Teddy Roosevelt forcing Germany to back down in South America and negotiating an end to the second war between Russia and Japan, this is most certainly not.  Whether it is truly the worst in United States history remains to be seen, but even then a final verdict will be largely predicated on whether we can contain the fallout from events that should never have happened in the first place and likely wouldn’t have happened under a stronger, more energetic, and creative leader.  At every turn, President Biden has chosen a path that prioritizes talk over action, believing that countries saying they are for something is the same as actually achieving that something, and has failed to deliver actual progress.  We do not yet know the final outcome of the war between Israel and Palstine, but Ukraine remains a quagmire with no actionable plans to change the outcome in any meaningful way, only more money to be spent.  Afghanistan has not generated much in the way of major headlines recently, but the Taliban remains in charge, weapons from there have made it to other areas of the Middle East, and it seems likely it is only a matter of time before the war torn country is used as a base of operations for terrorists.  At this point, one can only wonder what will be next given the President has more than another year left in office, and one cannot help but be reminded of his former boss, who once claimed we should never underestimate Joe Biden’s ability to fuck things up.