How will the US elections affect the Middle East?

The US elections on 3 November are keeping the whole world on tenterhooks as to whether Donald Trump will be re-elected as Republican president or whether, on the contrary, it will be the Democratic candidate, Joe Biden, who will win the election. But how could a second Trump term or a first Biden presidency affect the Middle East?

To begin with, in foreign policy matters, the reports of the Pentagon and the Council on Foreign Relations point out that the current and future challenges facing the US in the region are to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, support the allies in the Arab Gulf and Egypt and Jordan, stabilise the situation in Libya and Iraq and attempt to put an end to the alliance between Syria and Russia and Iran.

Under this scenario, Trump's prospects in the Middle East and, accordingly, his actions on the ground during his first term are based on strengthening relations with Saudi Arabia, Israel and Egypt, while maintaining a more combative position with Iran. 

For his part, both in his career as a senator and when he was Barack Obama's vice-president (2009-2017), Biden has worked in American diplomacy and military policy in the Middle East and has had experience in negotiations with Syria, Israel, Iran and Iraq, although the results of the latter were not very fruitful.

Iran is expected to be the highlight of foreign policy during the next US administration. In this connection it should be recalled that after the Iranian country signed the Nuclear Agreement with the Obama Administration in 2015, Trump withdrew from the pact in May 2018 and not only imposed trade sanctions on Iran but also threatened the countries that would reach agreements with the Iranians.

In response, Iran said it was no longer subject to any agreements or restrictions on the nuclear material it could produce. Subsequently, in September 2019, the country attacked a Saudi oil facility, leading to the assassination of the military commander at the head of the country's elite force, General Qassem Soleimani, in an attack ordered by President Trump in January this year. Iran responded by launching missiles at US bases in Iraq.

There are no signs that another Trump mandate could lead to a change in the relationship with this country beyond pressure through new sanctions and covert operations including cyber attacks, which is expected to dominate the strategy of a Republican Washington. In this context, it remains to be settled whether Trump's opposition to the nuclear agreement is based on any reason other than systemic denial of the measures adopted by Obama.

On the contrary, a Biden administration will seek to restore the agreement and move towards a rapprochement with Tehran. The Democrat has stated that he does not have much hope in this respect, although he has stressed that "the most intelligent way" of dealing with "the threat posed by Iran" includes returning to the 2015 agreement.

To this end, Biden is inclined to use democratic methods and ally with other countriesi, though the easing of sanctions on Iran may cause some of the states in the region to move away from this position.

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, both Trump and Biden claim to wish to withdraw troops from the conflicts in which they remain and, although neither has a concrete strategy for doing so, they differ on some points as to how to carry out this withdrawal.

On the one hand, Trump has been announcing since the campaign for the 2016 elections that his wish is to "return the American soldiers home", combatants who were tired of "endless wars", something he has repeated in the past month as part of the current campaign. 

In fact, the 'America First' managed to get part of the electorate that did not see much point in these wars or did not understand how the US spent billions of dollars for this purpose to vote for Trump.

The current president has gone one step further and has even assured that he is not "popular" in the Pentagon, as this organisation seeks only to "be at war" and "be able to spend millions of dollars on arms purchases". For their part, the Pentagon's top officials consider that a "precipitous" departure of the troops could endanger peace in Afghanistan.

However, when the magnate took over the White House he did so after the Obama Administration cut the number of troops in Afghanistan by a total of 8,400 in 2015. In one year of Trump's presidency this figure was increased to 14,000, although in September 2019 nearly 5,000 troops returned to the US. 

The situation in Iraq, on the contrary, has been generally downward, and if between 2003 and 2011 there were some 150,000 troops in the country, this figure has now dropped to 6,000.

In this connection Biden has shown a disparate stance with respect to US intervention abroad, supporting in some cases the sending of military personnel and opposing US interference in others. 

On the whole, he is sceptical of his country's ability to settle conflicts elsewhere in the world, something that may come from the failure of negotiations with Iraq in 2011 under the Obama presidency. This situation led to the immediate and unilateral withdrawal of US troops who, however, returned to the field three years later, while the situation in the country did not improve with the withdrawal. 

Therefore, although he wishes to return US troops to their home, the Democratic candidate defends doing so "responsibly" and advocates leaving a "residual force" in Afghanistan as a preventive measure against terrorism. This has drawn criticism from the more progressive Democrats, who are seeking a more conclusive position when it comes to returning the soldiers to US soil.

As for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Trump decided to give impetus to his foreign policy in the weeks leading up to the presidential elections and hosted the signing of the Abraham Agreements between Israel and the United Arab Emirates.

However, even though the president has carried out this action so close to the elections, it may have little impact on a population that is more concerned about the coronavirus pandemic and the racial protests that are shaking the United States.

Furthermore, although it was Trump who welcomed the signing of the agreements, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, assured that "whatever the result" of the US elections, relations between Israel and the US country "will remain firm and robust".

If the tycoon wins the election, the main victims in the Middle East will be the Palestinians. After Trump recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in his first term and in the framework of Netanyahu's plans to annex 30 per cent of the West Bank, the Palestinians are in the position of losing.

For his part, and although a Biden administration is not expected to return the embassy to Tel Aviv or recognise the city of Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital, the Democrat may oppose Israel's unilateral annexation of land if this has not occurred before his arrival in the Oval Office. 

Nonetheless, it is possible that Biden will take up the post that he resented during his time in the Obama cabinet in international affairs and, above all, it is possible that he will focus on undoing Trump's policies rather than actively promoting a new programme of external action.

As for Syria, Trump has described the country as an area of "sand and death", which shows how little interest he takes in the country's strategic importance or the humanitarian crisis it is experiencing and has left it to other leaders-Russia, Turkey and Iran-to fight in the area. It remains to be seen whether Biden will seek to restore the USA's credibility in the area or also adopt a stance of indifference.

For its part, Libya represents an even more complex challenge owing to the variety and crossover of interests in the country. The most Trump has done during his presidency has been to call for a ceasefire, though he has not been actively involved. 

However, neither is a greater commitment expected from Biden, although he opposed the 2011 intervention in Libya and was sceptical of those ideals that sought to transform the region.

The sanctions on Lebanon have been put on hold by the disaster of the Beirut explosion, but are expected to continue to be imposed on companies and political leaders owing to their supposed links with the Shiite militia party Hezbollah, irrespective of the leader in charge. Therefore, although the Republicans have been more aggressive in their policy of sanctions, Trump has refrained from imposing them on the country, which can be attributed to his total indifference to the country or lack of a strategy.

As for Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Egypt, the difference in the Democratic and Republican perspectives on relations with these countries is not too deep. The United States and the Gulf need each other and have shared interests, and little change is expected in this field. These interests are hardly avoidable by any leader and include energy trade through the Gulf, the Red Sea and the Suez Canal.

Therefore, although these states have benefited from Trump's mercantilist policy and have strengthened relations with the US administration, it is not to be expected that a possible Biden mandate would cool relations, although the Democrat has condemned Saudi Arabia's actions in the Yemen war on several occasions and warned against UAE's rapprochement with Iran.

Whatever candidate is chosen to lead the American country in the coming years, the Middle East will not be their main focus. On the contrary, the US is expected to focus on repairing the effects left by the COVID-19 and, in foreign policy terms, the Middle East is rated as the fourth priority in the order, behind Europe, the Indo-Pacific and Latin America.

Nonetheless, if Trump is elected, four years of further distancing and cooling of relations with the region are expected, while Biden could adopt more nuanced policies such as a return to the nuclear agreement with Iran and normalising relations without raising expectations or dashing them.
 

No obstante, si Trump sale elegido se esperan cuatro años de mayor alejamiento y enfriamiento de las relaciones con la región mientras que Biden podría adoptar unas políticas con mayores matices como la vuelta al Acuerdo Nuclear con Irán y normalizar las relaciones sin incrementar las expectativas ni acabar con ellas.