Introduction
Since the Hamas attack on October 7th that killed 1200 Israelis, more than 11,000 Palestinians have been killed in the ensuing counter strike and ground invasion by the Israeli Defense Forces. Heartbreaking images of death and destruction have sent shockwaves around the globe, and ignited a wide array of responses.
This article by no means seeks to prescribe a solution to a conflict that spans back decades, but I would be remiss not to acknowledge the tragic loss of life incurred on both sides. The October 7th attack was the largest single-day loss of Jewish lives since the Holocaust. At the same time, the number of Palestinian casualties, including over 4,000 children, has been criticized by many as a disproportionate response.
The mounting death toll has elicited widespread calls for a humanitarian ceasefire to limit further civilian casualties. As of November 19th, Israel has resisted these calls, and the U.S. has yet to request a ceasefire.
On November 9th, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced he would agree to daily, hours-long ‘humanitarian pauses’ in fighting. These pauses are intended to allow Palestinian civilians to travel from northern Gaza, the epicenter of Israeli airstrikes, to the southern end of the enclave. This by no means guarantees these civilians’ safety, and is bound to intensify the humanitarian crisis at the southern border with Egypt. Over 1.6 million Palestinians have been internally displaced, underscoring the need for a more sustained ceasefire.
This article will examine one specific factor that has constrained the United States’ ability to conduct effective diplomacy and secure humanitarian concessions: a lack of U.S. ambassadors in the region and the perils of reactive diplomacy.
Antony Blinken’s Shuttle Diplomacy
One of the biggest barriers to securing more substantial humanitarian concessions is the lack of existing relationships between leaders in the region. One of the people most closely linked to coverage of the crisis is the U.S. Secretary of State, Antony Blinken. Secretary Blinken is an exceptionally skilled diplomat, yet even he has struggled to navigate the complexity of this crisis and the speed at which it has unfolded.
In the days after the October 7th attack, Blinken embarked on a whirlwind diplomatic tour where he met with leaders in Israel, Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt all in the span of one week. This strategy, known as ‘shuttle diplomacy,’ involves direct meetings with foreign leaders in their own countries and is only used in the most urgent crises.
Although secretaries of state travel regularly, this trip was especially frenetic for Blinken because on the day of the attacks, the U.S. did not have an ambassador in Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Kuwait, or Oman. While the U.S. embassies in these countries were still functioning, with these top diplomatic posts vacant, Secretary Blinken was caught in an awkward predicament of having to rush to address the crisis on his own accord.
Secretary Blinken at a press conference alongside the foreign ministers of Egypt (left) and Jordan (center).
The key objectives of Blinken’s initial visits were to prevent violence from spreading across the region, assess the status of hostages, and secure a humanitarian corridor on the Egyptian border to allow aid into Gaza. Blinken was also tasked with laying the groundwork for a summit between President Biden, King Abdullah II of Jordan, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
Despite his extensive meetings with leaders across the region, Blinken’s shuttle diplomacy was largely unsuccessful, as Israel ultimately allowed just 20 aid trucks to cross the Egyptian border into Gaza. Moreover, Jordan canceled the proposed four-way summit just one day before President Biden was set to arrive in Amman. Jordan cited the bombing of the Al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza as justification for canceling the summit, claiming Israel had crossed a moral line. The origins of the rocket that damaged the hospital has been intensely disputed and remains inconclusive.
From November 2nd to 7th, Blinken returned to the Middle East to meet with leaders in Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, and the West Bank. Although negotiations over hostages are ongoing, his shuttle diplomacy failed to yield any publicly-announced deliverables.
Secretary Blinken pictured with Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority
The Implications of Vacant Ambassadorships
Ambassadors fulfill critical roles, as they are the United States’ chief representatives abroad, and are responsible for articulating and implementing foreign policy objectives in their respective countries. Vacant ambassadorships endanger national security, limit progress on strategic goals, and send a message that the countries with vacant posts are not a priority for the U.S.
Although unfilled posts can be covered by lower-ranking embassy officials on a temporary basis, these acting officials don’t possess the gravitas, legitimacy, or access to foreign leaders that a fully-fledged ambassador has, no matter how qualified the individual may be.
Without an ambassador to act as a liaison between U.S. and foreign leaders, communication can easily become stalled. Moreover, successful ambassadors work to develop camaraderie with foreign leaders, which generally lends them credibility when having to communicate the complexities of U.S. policy overseas. These relationships are especially crucial in times of crisis, when U.S. policy priorities may be at odds with the interests of the host government.
For instance, the previously mentioned vacancy in Oman is a significant liability. Oman is one of the few trusted intermediaries between the U.S. and Iran, whose governments do not communicate directly. Following Hamas’ attack on Israel, there was a rapid increase in attacks from Iranian-backed militias against U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria.
As the U.S. seeks to limit escalation in the face of these Iranian-backed strikes, having an ambassador in Oman to coordinate communication would give the U.S. leverage. Communication can help forestall conflict, but without proper channels in place, diplomacy is quickly supplanted by deterrence, as seen by the Pentagon deploying counterstrikes on militia sites.
A lack of ambassadors has also emboldened U.S. adversaries to ramp up their presence in these countries. China in particular is challenging the United States’ diplomatic predominance, as it recently became the country with the largest number of diplomatic posts worldwide and continues to increase its diplomatic budget.
Coupled with its unprecedented infrastructure project known as the Belt and Road Initiative, Beijing stands as a formidable competitor in both the diplomatic and military arenas. For precisely this reason, the U.S. needs its diplomatic corps to remain at full strength at all times.
Barriers to Confirmation
It’s important to note that the majority of vacant ambassadorships are not due to a lack of nominees, but rather the politicization of the congressional confirmation process. Like Supreme Court justices, nominees for the top State and Defense Department posts must be confirmed by a majority vote in the Senate. Although this process used to be a formality for ambassadorial nominees, it too has become contentious in recent years.
In November 2021, President Biden had issued 78 ambassador nominations, but just seven of them, a measly 9 percent, had been confirmed by the Senate. For comparison, Obama and Trump had 77 percent and 70 percent of their nominees confirmed at the same point in their respective presidencies.
These statistics reflect how hyper-polarization is affecting American foreign policy. Several Republicans in particular have popularized the tactic of stalling confirmations as a means of virtue signaling.
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) single handedly held up 38 ambassadorial nominations for more than a year while demanding access to classified documents pertaining to the COVID-19 outbreak, only relenting in late July, 2023. For the last nine months, Senators Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) and Mike Lee (R-UT) have been stalling the nominations of 364 military officers due for promotion because they oppose a military policy allowing servicemembers to be compensated for traveling out-of-state to obtain an abortion. These nominees include nine senior officials in the U.S. Central Command, which is responsible for all military activity in the Middle East. Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX), Josh Hawley (R-MO), and J.D. Vance (R-OH) have all also stalled confirmations, with Vance issuing a ‘wokeness questionnaire’ to State Department nominees.
These sorts of games are unprecedented in the Senate’s history, and are part of the larger trend that has seen the U.S. Congress devolve into a political circus. The hijacking of confirmations is particularly reprehensible, as it weakens the U.S. ability to contend with crises abroad amidst the deadliest year of global conflict in decades. Pitting foreign and domestic policy against one another is a dangerous precedent. Without intervention, this reckless behavior threatens to permanently derail the continuity and responsiveness of both the U.S. military and diplomatic corps.
Conclusion
On September 29th, U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan told an audience “the Middle East region is quieter today than it has been in two decades.” Just a week later, Sullivan’s comments would take on a tragic irony. The October 7th attack was a paradigm-shifting moment that has fundamentally altered the complexity of the Middle East for the foreseeable future.
As multiple crises unfold across the globe, it is vital that the U.S. utilize the full strength of its diplomatic corps in order to safeguard its interests abroad. This is impossible when key posts are left vacant due to self-absorbed senators’ partisan games.
In diplomacy, candor is a precondition for corrective action. If counterparts fail to form relationships founded on honesty, genuine collaboration is far more difficult to achieve. This is especially true given the history of American involvement in the Middle East, which has resulted in a trust deficit the U.S. may never recover from. Without investing adequate time and resources to cultivate trust with Middle East leaders, the U.S. will continue to be seen as an unwelcome presence in the region.
As the U.S. faces increasing pressure to push Israel for a ceasefire and a clear need for additional humanitarian aid, preserving its diplomatic maneuverability is more important than ever. Although the ambassadorial vacancies in Israel and Egypt have since been filled, the future of U.S. interests in the region will depend on our brightest diplomats continually engaging with Arab leaders at the highest level.
The need for a complete and united diplomatic front is not limited to the Middle East. The war in Ukraine and the recent coup in Niger both caught the U.S. completely off guard, and without ambassadors in either country.
These cases should serve as a reminder that U.S. diplomacy cannot become preoccupied with any one issue. The U.S. shifting its focus to the Indo-Pacific was well justified, but even amidst a period of increased competition with China, the U.S. must remain vigilant elsewhere.
The U.S. would be smart to adopt a more proactive approach to diplomacy, rather than reacting to crises as they occur. In the multipolar state of contemporary geopolitics, this lesson must be heeded.
The best way to avoid further catastrophe is for people around the world, ambassadors and average citizens alike, to lead with empathy, and remember the human costs of conflict. Unless cooler heads prevail, the world’s systemic instability will only intensify, and the consequences will be dire.
Louisville Political Review 