The following report is now a complimentary offering from MEMRI's Jihad and Terrorism Threat Monitor (JTTM). For JTTM subscription information, click here.
On December 13, 2020, the Da'wa committee of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) released issue six of its bulletin, Al-Wa'y (Awareness), which included an editorial expressing doubt that U.S. President Elect Joe Biden can change the U.S.'s policy toward Muslims, which the editorial claimed has remained unchanged since World War II.
According to the editorial, when considering which presidential candidate, whether Republican or Democratic, will better serve Islam and the Muslims, "the truth that should be understood is that generally, U.S. policies are not determined or planned only by its presidents." The editorial also noted that U.S. presidents are restricted by U.S. national security institutions, legislative chambers, and lobbies, such as the "Zionist lobby, multinational giant corporations, and international public opinion."
Stressing that nothing will change regarding attitudes toward Islam and Muslims after the election of a new U.S. president, the editorial cited a statement by slain Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, in which he described U.S. policy as "a train on a predetermined track, in which the duty of the president is [to decide whether] to speed up, slow down, stop, or move[.] But it would be difficult for a [U.S.] president to survive stepping off the general political track, as he would be blocked by Congress, institutions and lobbies. If they fail [to stop him], he will be downed by any other means, such as a scandal or something else. This is why the U.S. policy towards Muslims has not changed over the past decades. Has it ever been heard that the White House abandoned the Jews or sided with Palestine or with Muslims, anywhere, even for one day[?] Or that it stopped its support of authoritative countries that rule over Muslims[?]"
Comparing the potential policies of a Democratic U.S. President and a Republican one, the editorial noted that either could have various disadvantages to Muslims. "Generally," the editorial stated, "the Republican party leans towards waging wars, racism, religious and cultural conservatism, and firearm ownership, whereas the Democratic party leans towards liberalism, economy, minority rights [...] as well as using sugary phrases to cover up deeply-rooted hostilities. The President has authority, and has a wide margin in which he can maneuver, including the ability to wage or end wars, and sign or cancel agreements[.] But he cannot change the core of the U.S.'s policy towards Muslims, which has not changed since the end of World War II. Within this margin, one President might be easier on Muslims than another, while one might be worse than another, but may benefit Muslims with his idiotic policies, which might harm the U.S. [–] such as turning against allies; waging wars which may drain the U.S. economically, or with its number of casualties; by encouraging racism and division among Americans, as was the case during the eras of George W. Bush and Trump."
The editorial concluded by noting that U.S. policy towards non-Muslim nations may change drastically or remain the same, saying that China, for example, was neutral towards the U.S. during the era of President Obama and the Democrats, yet the U.S.'s relations with China have since deteriorated, with the two countries engaging in media battles, sanctions, and trade wars.
 Telegram.me/tapaiwr December 13, 2020