To Go Wobbly or not to go Wobbly: That is the Question Regarding War and Miscalculation in the Middle East

First, you say, you do
And then you don’t
And then you say, you will
And then you won’t

You’re undecided now
So what are you gonna do?

“Undecided,” as sung by Ella Fitzgerald

“Going Wobbly” is the most disparaging criticism of leadership, usually applied to Western democratic leaders who are perceived as weak and undependable when commitments are made.  There is a consensual perception that Vladimir Putin relies on this perception of the United States and the West in his war against Ukraine, wherein the United States’ commitment is already beginning to attenuate.

President Joe Biden, already perceived as weak, especially per his ill-timed and deadly withdrawal from Afghanistan, is already thought of as undependable, despite his strong out-of-the-gate support for Israel and condemnation of Hamas in their attack on the Jewish state.

The article’s headline play on the words of Hamlet’s soliloquy deals with the prospect of suicide, which is what Israelis believe they face if Hamas is not completely defeated and removed from power in Gaza.

President Biden is…or is he?…already showing signs of being the indecisive Hamlet.

Two years-plus ago, Newsweek magazine described precisely the overwhelming concern that presidential observers who favor a strong America and see a weak America as an invitation to world instability have regarding weakness, and in the case of President Joe Biden, consistent weakness:  “Two weeks after Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, the UN Security Council passed a resolution imposing an embargo and maritime blockade on Iraqi shipping. Then-President George H.W. Bush was trying to figure out how to forcefully enforce it, and he discussed the issue with then-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher listened to Bush’s dilemma and warned, ‘Remember George, this is no time to go wobbly.’…Biden’s failed leadership of the U.S. pullout from Afghanistan has placed the U.S. and its allies under grave threat and empowered U.S. enemies. NATO allies in Germany, Britain, and beyond have lost faith in U.S. leadership. China is wasting no time replacing the U.S. as the great power in Afghanistan.”

Initially, President Biden, in addition to his and his top aide’s visit to Israel and Arab states, gave a mostly unambiguous warning, “[I]f the United States experienced what Israel is experiencing, our response would be swift, decisive, and overwhelming. …Let me say again — to any country, any organization, and anyone thinking of taking advantage of this situation, I have one word: Don’t.  Don’t.”

Again, this was roughly two years before Hamas in a Pearl Harbor sneak attack, the terrorist group whose attack on Israel the president described in an early – three days after the attack, nationwide address as “pure, unadulterated evil…unleashed on this world.”

The support from the United States is viewed as critical in nullifying the expansion of the War, lest the Hamas-Israel war expand to Hezbollah and other Middle East combatants.  In the worst-case scenario, the United States worries about the expansion including states who claim difficulty in controlling their populations in the Arabian peninsula and elsewhere, including even Egypt.

There are dangers in not going wobbly – if countries view a policy as threatening their nation’s or leadership’s existence — but the inference by political adversaries that you are doing so invites the greatest danger short of war: miscalculation.

Is Biden going wobbly?

Now, over a month since the terror invasion and missile attack on Israel, the Administration communicates often from anonymous sources that, as NBC puts it,  “there is growing concern among top Biden administration officials about how the Israelis are carrying out the war and uncertainty about whether they can be reined in.”

On the other hand, the Defense Department says there are no restrictions as of yet regarding weaponry to be supplied to the Administration.

When “anonymous” officials in the White House appear to contradict the president, the implication is that the White House is hedging its bets, that other sources of influence can openly without negative consequences try to persuade the president to move Israel to push for ceasefires and short or long cessation of hostilities, which Israel claims would mean increased danger and death to her and her citizens and her – and – our — hostages.

When asked about Israel’s occupation of Gaza,  Secretary of State Antony Blinken said no America doesn’t support it, but maybe for a short period of time.  Israel says it already has had pauses.

On November 8 when United States National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby was asked about whether the president had requested from Israel a three-day pause, he wouldn’t say, citing it as a “security matter.”  When asked how the United States justifies a weak response to Iranian attacks on U.S. troops near Iraq and Syria and whether we would respond to increasing such attacks since then, he said we would do so in our choosing of the time and place.

No one knows how much Biden is trying to convince Israel to reduce its commitment to destroy Hamas, in violation of his earlier strong support.

All-out support of Israel’s goal of wiping out Hamas is risky; communicating indecision on point after point is riskier, and that’s what you can likely, but not certainly, expect from President Biden.

That is what is meant by “going wobbly.”