Blinken meets, Burns Schemes: the US’s double game in the Middle East!
Antony Blinken’s recent diplomatic journey in the Middle East has been nothing short of extraordinary. With a relentless pace, he embarked on a tour that brought him face to face with key leaders and engaged in strategic diplomatic maneuvers that could shape the future of the region. His mission? To rally support for a regional consensus that would bring relief to the suffering civilians in Gaza, who have endured the devastating impact of a prolonged conflict.
From Israel to Jordan, the occupied West Bank to Cyprus, and even Iraq, Blinken left no stone unturned in his quest for a solution. His meetings with leaders were marked by a determination to find common ground and agree on crucial humanitarian pauses that would allow vital aid to reach the besieged region of Gaza. The United States’ commitment to making a difference was evident throughout his journey.
A turning point came during his meeting with the Turkish Foreign Minister in Ankara. Despite inevitable differences, shared convictions on pressing issues emerged, offering a glimmer of hope. Blinken cautiously expressed optimism about the potential for significant progress in negotiations for the release of hostages, a matter of utmost importance for Israel and the international community.
Meanwhile, President Joe Biden engaged in a series of conversations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. These discussions centered around recent developments in the conflict, emphasizing unwavering U.S. support for Israel. However, it was made clear that facilitating humanitarian aid to Gaza was a top priority. Through telephone diplomacy, America conveyed its intention to mediate for peace, while remaining true to its values and historical allies.
The head of the CIA, Bill Burns, also played a significant role in this geopolitical dance. His visit to Tel Aviv was just the beginning, as he embarked on a journey to other key nations including Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt. The objective was to devise targeted strategies against Hamas and stress the importance of a ceasefire to allow humanitarian aid to flow and prevent further civilian casualties.
As diplomacy unfolded on the ground, Washington made a powerful statement of strength by deploying an Ohio-class nuclear submarine in the Mediterranean. This unmistakable signal of deterrence aimed to prevent any further escalation of the conflict.
Simultaneously, from Brussels, proposals emerged from Ursula von der Leyen for a two-state solution and the implementation of an international peace mission under the United Nations’ auspices. While these initiatives were intended to bring about positive change, they also caused some friction among EU officials who were surprised by the lack of prior coordination. After all, the European Commission has a marginal role in foreign policy.
All these actions and words are taking place in a tense international context, where every move is scrutinized for its potential impact on the delicate balance of power and the lives of civilians caught in the crossfire.