All Politics is Local

A famous US Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill once said that “All politics is local” meaning that it is the local politics that affects national politics. It makes sense when Senators and Congress depend on local votes for their job. (Since O’Neil’s tenure there are a lot more opportunities for lobbies, corporate donors, and Super PACs to overtake voter concerns though. Sigh.) The one area where people assume local politics don’t play a role is foreign policy. After all, national security is viewed as a big picture strategy, not local citizen interest. But wasn’t Thatcher’s Falklands War sparked by local politics? Wasn’t Bill Clinton’s bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory driven by the Lewinski scandal? Isn’t that the whole joke behind Wag the Dog? Foreign policy is, of course, included in “all politics is local”. Domestic pressures certainly drive foreign policy decisions. Using the Clinton example again, why was Sudan a priority and intervention in Rwanda was not, except for the critical timing to relieve domestic pressure?  

Gaza as US local politics. One of the downsides of being a small state is that we are often the victim of the domestic pressures of our larger allies. Israel-Palestine is a perennial case. The recent talk of a ceasefire is especially painful. It is painful for us because we see the destruction and death, but we also see the domestic game for the players. Bibi has his own shaky government and outstanding court cases to delay. Iran has a new president and a humiliating assassination on the day of his inauguration they want to avenge. Hezbollah has local Beirut networks to manage and leverage for power and resources. Finally, the US has a complex presidential election. There is an outgoing president looking to secure a legacy larger than the internal party coup which removed him. The vice-president is looking for a positive spin to secure electoral victory, speaking of the tireless work towards a ceasefire (we have heard of tireless work since June while weapons continue to flow from the US to Israel). A former president has an aggressive campaign style, a desire to return to power, and has a clear preference for how he wants Middle East ‘peace’ defined. Secretary of State Blinken recently has spoken of a ceasefire being close. Close to what? It seems like the US was negotiating with the US in this recent round. Neither Israel nor Hamas are eager to compromise at this point. In fact, Israel killed the last negotiator. 

Jordan’s local politics: But back to us. Yes, we are victims of the domestic politics of our larger allies. “When elephants battle, it is the grass that suffers”  But we shouldn’t overlook our own domestic politics. Sometimes people assume that in small states, all politics are not local. No. The rule applies here as well. That is one reason I have focused on the September 10 elections when the modernizations are actually implemented. Now, Parliament doesn’t really have powers over foreign policy or national security issues. But large blocs or parties can act as a spoiler. They can act as microphones for certain citizen groups - either radical or productive. If the IAF gets 35 seats in this new Parliament, those local politics will have an effect on our alliances, on our public positioning, and citizen perceptions. For another small state example, look at Georgia as the pro-EU and the anti-EU elements in the country pummel each other in elections and on social media. Jordanians are aware of regional nuances. Jordanians are aware of the fragility of peace. Jordanians have authentic views on what is happening next door. For those Middle East watchers who want to fly to Amman every year, praise the stability at the border (meaning Israel’s border), but then dismiss our elections and our reforms and our citizens- they do so at your own peril. 

Where it comes together: The local politics in the US and EU have been at the forefront in media discussions about Gaza and Israel. The recent Democrat conference is an example, showing the protests outside and the refusal to include them on the  inside. This domestic strife and political divide makes any position on Palestine a domestic campaign position. In a shock to many other corners of the world, when the media discusses political stances on Gaza in the US, it spurs the question, “But what about Michigan?” as if Michigan were the battleground and not Khan Younis.  In the EU, Germany has had the most dramatic intervention of local politics with political parties racing to be the most aggressive against anti-Semitism (arguably anti Zionism) and supportive of Israel. This is very obviously tied to Germany’s history, especially during World War II, and the need to ‘re-brand’ Germany from an apologetic former fascist state to the modern democracy fighting hate and terrorism. Likewise for states that participated in betraying their Jewish citizens like Estonia (the first Nazi ‘victory’ as Estonia’s population of 925 Jews was eradicated as a result). Estonia now takes a fiercely pro-Israel position as repentance for the actions of former citizens. Essentially, before we look at energy corridors, trade corridors, precedents in international law, or diplomatic rhetoric, we need to look at domestic actors and actions. Small shifts can result in big policy changes that can’t be explained otherwise. Palestine happens to be a crossroads where we have numerous travelers passing through, all focused on their own problems at home. 

My Take:

All politics is local. I believe that now. It’s true in every country - even for small states though they sometimes get steamrolled by the policies of large neighbors or allies. Gaza is a victim of domestic nuances in Germany, the US, Israel, Iran, Lebanon, Azerbaijan, Ukraine and other states. When looking at the foreign policy of a country, the rule of Realism is that we should look at their national interests. What are their interests in this policy? Border security? Diaspora? Hydrocarbons?  But I think that before we ask how hungry the state is for petroleum, we look at their domestic trends. 

In the points above, I pointed out that 1) Domestic pressures are the real drivers of foreign policy in many cases and 2) While that may be admitted by some, it is mistakenly dismissed in the case of MENA states. In the case of many countries we mistakenly ask, “What about international law?” instead of asking, who gains domestically from each position? With the Middle East, many mistakenly ignore elections and parties and domestic trends. (France24, the Christian Science Monitor, and Al Jazeera are some of the only media exceptions).

What I am saying to my Western friends is this - don’t dismiss the domestic pressures in MENA states. Popular movements have power. Generational beliefs have power. Social fissures have power. New developments have power. 

What I am saying to my fellow Middle Easterners - it is not always a military-industrial conspiracy. Sometimes it's just politics. Sometimes it is just campaign season. “When the elephants battle, it is the grass that suffers.” But the elephants are not always Israel vs Hamas or Russia vs Ukraine. Sometimes it is Republican vs Democrat, or Social Dem vs Christian Dem, or European People’s Party vs the Green Party.

Are Western states acting in their national interest by supporting Israel so strongly? It’s unclear. Where do national interests end and survival interests for political leaders begin? Those are very murky waters. (If states acted in their best national interests it would have been for clear peace by establishing a Palestinian state and restoring Palestinian dignity, release of hostages, and complete ceasefire instead of a muddle of weapons sales, constant summits and trips and political rallies, posturing, and domestic press conferences).   

Let’s look again at those domestic events, even the small ones. They may affect our future. There is a generation of Republicans attending Trump rallies waving Israel flags. There are German Christian Democrats who believe that the keffiyeh is a symbol of anti-Semitism. There is a whole generation of young Arabs who identify with the “force narrative”. There is a generation of Lebanese growing up without stable electricity, Internet, or currency. There is a generation of Jordanians about to vote in their first election with the real possibility of political representation. There is a generation of young Tunisians seeing the advances their parents won, quickly disappear. Where will these small domestic changes take us in twelve years? 

Let’s look behind the breaking news. Let’s look at each other's domestic shifts - especially the small ones.