A Legacy of Instability
This article seeks to shed light on this informed exodus by examining key policy decisions, deviations from previous administrations, and their far-reaching consequences.
The Middle East has long been a theatre of complex politics, historical grievances, and competing interests. Many observers may lack familiarity with the intricacies of Middle East policy, which makes the backlash among some staunch U.S. Democrat voters against the policies of Barack Obama and Joe Biden particularly striking. Previously, an overwhelming majority of Jewish Americans had been steadfast supporters of the Democratic candidate, whoever that may have been. That changed in November 2024. Data suggests this shift was not merely a matter of domestic politics but a response to decisions with profound implications for the Middle East and the Jewish diaspora.
This article seeks to shed light on this informed exodus by examining key policy decisions, deviations from previous administrations, and their far-reaching consequences. While evaluating the full impact of Obama and Biden’s approaches in such a volatile region will require the passage of time, certain prima facie observations suggest their Middle Eastern policies may ultimately be remembered for amplifying instability, emboldening adversaries, and weakening alliances.
Iran: A Tale of Missteps and Consequences
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran Nuclear Deal, was the Obama administration’s signature foreign policy initiative. Finalised in 2015, the agreement was reached between Iran and the P5+1 nations (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany), with the European Union acting as a mediator. The JCPOA aimed to restrict Iran’s nuclear program to ensure it remained exclusively peaceful. In exchange, international sanctions on Iran were lifted, granting the country access to billions of dollars in frozen assets and global markets.
Key provisions of the agreement included limiting uranium enrichment to 3.67%, capping Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium, and reducing the number of centrifuges it could operate. Additionally, the deal established a rigorous inspection regime under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify Iran’s compliance. While supporters heralded the agreement as a diplomatic achievement that delayed Iran’s potential path to nuclear weaponisation, critics identified significant shortcomings. They argued the JCPOA failed to address Iran’s ballistic missile program, regional aggression, and support for militant proxies. Furthermore, the financial relief provided to Tehran was seen as enabling its destabilising activities throughout the Middle East.
The agreement faced intense backlash, particularly from Israel and Saudi Arabia—two of Iran’s most immediate and impacted neighbours, and key allies of the United States. Israeli and Saudi leaders criticised the deal for overlooking critical elements of Iran’s regional behaviour. They warned that the billions of dollars unfrozen under the agreement would flow to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and directly fund its proxies, including Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. These groups have long played central roles in regional destabilisation, often targeting Saudi and Israeli interests.
While the JCPOA temporarily curtailed Iran’s nuclear enrichment activities, it did little to mitigate its broader aggression in the Middle East. Israeli leaders argued that the deal legitimised Iran’s nuclear ambitions without dismantling its future capacity to weaponize. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia highlighted how the agreement failed to address Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism and destabilising interventions in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and Iraq. Both nations viewed the JCPOA as entrenching Tehran’s influence and emboldening its aggressive behaviour.
During the Biden administration, loosened sanctions further exacerbated these concerns. By 2023, Iran’s oil exports surged, generating $44 billion in annual revenue. China, purchasing over 1.2 million barrels per day, was a primary beneficiary, while other recipients included Syria, Venezuela, and clandestine Russian markets. This influx of cash not only bolstered Tehran’s economy but also empowered its military ambitions and emboldened its proxies, amplifying tensions across the region. Reports from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the International Energy Agency corroborated these troubling trends, painting a stark picture of the unintended consequences of policies designed to constrain Iran.
Houthi Sanctions: A Reversal with Consequences
In January 2021, just days before leaving office, the Trump administration designated the Houthis as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). This move aimed to curb Iranian-backed aggression in Yemen, protect critical maritime routes, and disrupt the Houthis’ financing. The comprehensive sanctions froze assets, restricted financial transactions, and targeted Houthi leaders, effectively cutting off significant revenue streams and limiting the group’s operational capacity.
However, President Biden reversed this decision upon assuming office, citing humanitarian concerns about impeding aid to Yemeni civilians. While perhaps well-intentioned, this policy change emboldened the Houthis. In 2021 alone, they launched over 375 drone and missile strikes on Saudi Arabia, targeting oil facilities and civilian areas. These attacks disrupted global energy markets, leading to price increases in economies like Australia and further straining the post-pandemic recovery. Maritime security in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait—a vital chokepoint for global trade—remained under constant threat.
By February 2022, facing mounting criticism, the Biden administration reimposed partial sanctions on the Houthis. However, these were notably weaker and more targeted than the original FTO designation. Critics argued that these concessions were part of a broader effort to revive the JCPOA with Iran. Bolstered by Iranian support, the Houthis intensified their aggression, further destabilising global energy markets and threatening international security. As late as January 2025, the U.S. military was conducting kinetic strikes on this terrorist organisation to mitigate its growing threat.
Withholding Weapons from Israel
The aftermath of Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, which claimed 1,200 civilian lives, demanded unequivocal support from allies. Yet, the Biden administration delayed the delivery of critical munitions, citing logistical challenges and concerns over escalation. This hesitancy drew widespread criticism and was seen by some as indicative of wavering resolve.
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley stated, “When a nation like Israel is under attack, any delay in military aid sends a dangerous signal to its enemies. This is a moment for solidarity, not hesitation.” Former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant similarly lamented, “Withholding weapons during a time of war ties one hand behind Israel’s back while emboldening our adversaries.”
Direct Attacks by Iran on Israel
Iran’s aggression toward Israel has escalated beyond its proxies, with Tehran directly targeting Israeli military and civilian infrastructure. In 2024, Iran launched two significant attacks on Israel from Iranian territory.
The first, in April, involved a massive assault featuring over 300 drones, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles aimed at various Israeli assets, including a naval vessel in the Red Sea. Despite Israel’s robust defence systems, damage was inflicted, marking the most aggressive direct action by Iran in recent history.
The second, in October, saw approximately 180 ballistic missiles launched toward Israel. This assault resulted in casualties and material damage. These attacks employed some of Iran’s most advanced weaponry, including the Fateh-313 missile, which boasts a destructive radius of up to 500 metres (25-35 city blocks in Paris). Such sustained aggression underscored Tehran’s growing willingness to escalate directly against Israel.
It is impossible to imagine any other first-world nation not responding decisively to such a brazen assault. Yet, this was the pressure the Biden administration levelled on Israel, with President Biden urging Israeli leaders to “take the win” rather than retaliate.
Israel’s unparalleled four-layer missile defence system—Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow 2, and Arrow 3—once again demonstrated extraordinary ingenuity in foiling sustained attacks. Few nations possess such comprehensive defensive capabilities. However, this technological prowess seems to contribute to a broader international immaturity in understanding Israel’s plight.
I am forming the view that the political elite and perhaps the public in many western nations appear to view Israel’s ability to mitigate existential threats as an expectation rather than a remarkable feat, undermining empathy for the nation’s unique and precarious security challenges.
The international community appears to have become the proverbial “slow-boiled frog,” acclimatising to escalating threats against Israel without recognising their broader implications. If missiles with the destructive capabilities of the Fateh-313 were fired at London, Paris, Sydney, Auckland or Los Angeles, the global response would likely be swift and unequivocal. Yet, when such attacks target Israel, muted outrage and calls for restraint often replace support.
Richard Goldberg, a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, remarked, “Iran’s escalation in 2024 is the direct result of policies that signal indecision and a lack of resolve. Tehran views the absence of a strong deterrent as an invitation to test the limits of Israeli and international tolerance.”
From Stalemate to Solutions to Subsequent Missteps
John Kerry, as Secretary of State under President Obama, was a central figure in crafting U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His approach rested heavily on the long-standing assumption that peace in the Middle East hinged on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The Obama Administration’s efforts culminated in a high-profile push for peace talks in 2013-2014, but his strategy—emphasising preconditions and harshly critiquing Israeli policies—yielded no tangible results. In stark contrast, the Trump administration’s Abraham Accords reshaped the regional landscape, bypassing the Palestinian issue to foster unprecedented cooperation between Israel and several Arab nations.
The Obama Administration’s approach was rooted in a belief that Israeli settlement expansion was the primary obstacle to peace. Kerry’s public rebukes of Israel alienated its leadership, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calling his criticism “obsessive and unbalanced.” Kerry’s infamous 2016 speech asserted that “there will be no separate peace between Israel and the Arab world without the Palestinian process,” dismissing any possibility of broader regional diplomacy. This rigid stance ignored the evolving priorities of Arab nations, particularly their growing alignment with Israel on countering Iranian aggression.
The Obama Administration’s fixation on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a prerequisite for peace ignored emerging opportunities for collaboration between Israel and Arab states. His insistence on preconditions, coupled with his administration’s backing of UN Resolution 2334–was adopted on December 23, 2016, after Donald Trump had won the U.S. presidential election in November but before he took office in January 2017—which condemned Israeli settlements, further strained U.S.-Israel relations without bringing the Palestinians closer to the negotiating table.
In contrast, the Trump administration rejected The Obama Administration’s framework and pursued a pragmatic, interest-driven approach to Middle East diplomacy. The result was the Abraham Accords, a series of historic agreements signed in 2020 between Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. The accords normalised diplomatic, economic, and security relations between Israel and these Arab nations, marking a dramatic shift in the region’s dynamics. Key terms of the Abraham Accords included:
- Normalisation of Relations: Establishing full diplomatic ties, including embassies and direct flights.
- Economic Cooperation: Agreements on trade, innovation, and energy projects, such as Israel’s solar energy collaboration with the UAE.
- Security Partnerships: Enhanced intelligence-sharing and joint military training to counter shared threats like Iran.
Under the Biden administration, there has been a noticeable regression in the momentum generated by the Abraham Accords. While Biden has expressed lukewarm support for the accords, his administration has deprioritised their expansion, focusing instead on reviving failed frameworks tied to the Palestinian issue. Critics argued that this shift has discouraged further breakthroughs, particularly with Saudi Arabia, which was reportedly close to joining the accords during Trump’s presidency.
Saudi Arabia’s inclusion would have been a monumental achievement, solidifying a regional coalition against Iran and creating a broader framework for Middle East stability. Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman remarked, “We were on the cusp of bringing Saudi Arabia into the fold. What was missing was sustained U.S. leadership to bridge the final gaps.” Biden’s return to Obama-era priorities, including re-engaging with Iran and downplaying the Abraham Accords, has been described by commentators as a “strategic blunder.”
Possible Reasons and Implications for Australia
A significant shift in U.S. Democratic Party policies toward the radical left has created divisions within its traditional support base. Obama-era intersectional policies—which critics argue prioritised divisive identity politics over unifying principles—alienated many long-standing supporters. This shift, exacerbated by Biden’s perceived alignment with progressive radicals, has left some Jewish Americans questioning their place in the party.
Prominent voices have described this as “pandering to the radical left.” Former Democratic strategist Mark Penn noted, “The Democratic Party’s sharp turn toward intersectionality risks alienating core supporters. Loyalty is a two-way street.” Jewish Americans, many of whom have been lifelong Democratic voters, now face the reality that their loyalty was not reciprocated.
Parallels to Australian politics are striking. The exodus of Jewish Americans from the Democratic Party, driven by perceived abandonment during critical moments, serves as a stark warning of what happens when parties—whether that be the ALP or the Teal ‘Independents’—take their Australian Jewish base for granted.
Mea Culpa
In my 30-year military career, I have maintained political awareness but a strictly apolitical approach. I now, however, affirm that in 2008, I desired an Obama win. In part, this was due to concerns over John McCain’s age and the prospect of a Sarah Palin presidency. Additionally, I was weary after eight years of neo-conservative policies and captivated by the charm and spell cast by Obama.
Even in 2016, when I believed a Clinton presidency was the better prospect, I remained unaware of the magnitude and implications of Obama’s policy missteps as they related to the Middle East. At the time, I found myself sceptical of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s warnings about Iran, influenced by prominent voices suggesting his concerns were exaggerated. For instance, former Mossad chief Meir Dagan dismissed Netanyahu’s alarmism and consideration of taking unilateral action as “the stupidest thing I have ever heard,” while Uzi Eilam, a retired brigadier general, accused Netanyahu of exploiting the Iranian threat for political objectives. In retrospect, many of Netanyahu’s warnings about the limitations of the JCPOA and the broader risks posed by Iran’s regional ambitions have been validated.
It was not until the Trump presidency, with its Maximum Pressure Campaign against Iran and the emergence of the Abraham Accords, that I truly “awoke.” I awoke to the threat Iran posed not just to the region but to the international rules-based global order. Israeli and Saudi Arabian leaders had been right all along in their opposition to Obama’s policies and their reimplementation under Biden. I know of no historical precedent where showering repressive regimes with financial windfalls resulted in their transformation into democracies. Expecting an autocratic regime to develop an inner “Thomas Jefferson” is naïve at best and catastrophically misguided at worst.
How May History Judge?
As Barbara Tuchman observed, “Policy errors are not always immediately apparent, but time exposes their consequences.” While the full impact of the Obama and Biden Middle Eastern policies remains to be seen, initial assessments suggest a legacy marked by appeasement, hesitation, and missed opportunities.
Some critics argue these policies reflect the most significant missteps in U.S. Middle Eastern strategy since the Carter administration, perhaps worse. This is not simply naivety; history may eventually judge the Obama and Biden missteps as malfeasance. Their decisions—from emboldening Iran to undermining Israeli security—seem less accidental and more indicative of a deliberate strategy prioritising diplomatic optics over substantive stability. This did not go unnoticed by Jewish Americans who previously were lifelong Democrats.
The Middle East remains one of the world’s most complex regions, which in my judgment requires leadership that prioritises strength, accountability, and the fostering of alliances. While Obama and Biden’s policies may have aimed for diplomacy, their legacy—at least for now—appears one of heightened instability and weakened trust among allies. Future administrations must learn from these lessons, adopting policies that combine firm resolve with a clear-eyed understanding of regional dynamics.
Colonel Michael Scott CSC is the CEO and Founder of the 2023 Foundation, a charity focused on combating antisemitism and fostering peaceful coexistence. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the positions of the Australian Defence Force or the Commonwealth Government of Australia.
comments