In International Policy: Trends in American Middle East Policy

While reviewing the newest issue of the Journal of Palestinian Studies, my attention was drawn to a timely, controversial article titled “America’s Pivot to Asia-Pacific from the Middle East,” a recently translated article originally written by Dr. Omer Taspinar, a professor at Johns Hopkins University and researcher at the Brookings Institution in America. On one hand, the article examines the cause and effect surrounding the United States’ foreign policy interest in the Pacific region as the U.S. reacts to China’s changing position in the race for world domination.

There is nothing new or controversial in this part of the analysis. This has been apparent for some time as something that has become known as the “Obama Doctrine,” the current American administration’s initiative to give strategic priority to its policy of rebuffing China and containing China’s rising regional and international status.

Certainly, this American approach is justifiable, as China’s economic and political growth make it the number one competitor to the United States’ international hegemony. It is thus expected that Washington would do everything in its power, diplomatically and politically, to curb this possibility.

What is controversial about this article is what comes in the second part of the analysis in which the author professes the necessity of cutting American ties with the Middle East so it can successfully “pivot” in the direction of Asia and the Pacific.

On this point, Taspinar cites three reasons he thinks are grounds for a gradual American retreat from the Middle East: first, the growing unwillingness, according to American public opinion, to intervene in the Middle East; second, the rising costs of military positioning and intervening in the region while at the same time suffering from an economic crisis that has yet to be completely resolved; and third, the growing feeling of American energy independence, thanks to the shale oil and gas revolution, which means decreasing, and possibly ending, American dependence on Arab oil.

The subject of America’s attention turning from the Middle East has become fashionable in international policy literature, given the decline and lack of any real American intervention in the issues of the region such as the Islamic State or the problems in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Egypt.

It is true that America has become less active in its policies toward the complicated issues of the region, but is it correct to assume this means an American break from the region and complete turning toward the Pacific region? More specifically and directly, is it possible for the U.S. to withdraw from the area and turn toward the Pacific?

Clearly, there is a “pivot” in U.S. foreign policy in favor of the Pacific region, and it is also clear that the current American administration, as well as the American public, do not want to become involved in a direct military intervention, as in sending an armed force to the Middle East.

But this does not necessarily mean that the U.S. will “pack its bags” and leave the Middle East, because even if America wanted to leave, it would be impossible. Pivoting from the Middle East does not mean complete disengagement. Three basic factors lead me to this conclusion.

First, the Middle East is an internationally vital and strategic region. It is located in the middle of the world, making it an essential international crossing point for commerce, transport and communications. In addition, the Middle East possesses the largest oil reserves while at the same time being internally unstable and subject to external conflicts. As the U.S. currently sits on top of the world order, and as the U.S. attempts to maintain its place ahead of the advancement of other major countries, the most important of which is China, it will be necessary to maintain its presence and involvement in this vital region. This presence is not only important to protect its interests, but also those of its traditional allies, the Europeans and Japanese. America’s continued control over the region is necessary and essential to confront China and other competitors. Complete American disengagement from the region would leave a void for others to fill, perhaps competitors or even allies. For example, let us imagine China, which America is trying to contain, filling the void. If China controlled the Middle East, the U.S. would have much to lose.

Second, America has vital interests in the region that would be unthinkable to give up. It suffices to mention two issues.

Number one: the oil that the U.S. wants to keep flowing, not only for the U.S., but also for America’s allies, who are more dependent on it than the United States. It is also worth mentioning that the views that the U.S. is on the cusp of reaching energy independence are greatly exaggerated. It is true that there have been new American energy discoveries, especially in shale oil, but the cost of producing shale oil is much more than the price of importing oil from the Persian Gulf region. Because of this, the U.S. will have to continue to import oil.

Number two: keeping international trade flowing through the Middle East, which contains the most important straits in the world. Aside from this, the Middle East is an important market for American, and other Western consumer goods. Maintaining American control of the region ensures the United States’ continued dominance in its international trade capabilities, financially and in regard to investments.

Lastly, of course, Israel is on the top of the list of American allies, and ensuring Israel’s existence and security is a top priority for America as Israel is considered a domestic policy issue, not a foreign policy issue. Because of this, an American presence in the region is considered necessary and vital for the protection of Israel and securing Israel’s interests. After Israel, the list of allies includes many Arab countries including the Gulf States, Egypt and Jordan.

Maintaining security in these countries is vital to Washington. Should any one of these countries collapse, it would negatively affect the security of the entire region and negatively affect the United States’ interests within the region. From this perspective, it is within the United States’ interests to confront the Islamic State group.

It may be that under the Obama administration, Washington has more precisely specified its foreign policy priorities and practiced more “restraint” than did the previous administration under former President George W. Bush. This may explain the current administration’s reluctance to launch military campaigns, especially in the Middle East after having ended Operation Iraqi Freedom. This reluctance has led many to rush to the conclusion that Washington has abandoned the region. This incorrect conclusion has vexed many in the region and led to increased competition and conflict, which is still ongoing.

It is also important not to disregard the possibility that the conclusion that America is abandoning the region is being spread around political and academic circles in order to scare America’s allies in the region and push them into a closer alliance with Washington.

In conclusion, the American pivot to the Asia-Pacific region does not mean America is abandoning the Middle East. This is a vital region for the needs of America, and policymakers will take the region into consideration when formulating opinions and making decisions.