The Shrinking Map of American Interests in the Middle East

During the eight decades since U.S. intervention in the Middle East, there have been five primary components that have defined the map of American interests in the region: oil, the security of Israel, geopolitical interests, the War on Terror and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction — with the exception of Israel! These interests arose over time and are subject to strategic changes and fundamental transformations which might help explain the recent withdrawal in American policy and might indicate the directions of U.S. policies with regard to the region in the future.

The Decline of the Demand for Oil

Oil represents the longest continual interest in the region, dating back to the 1930s. The United States has obtained the majority of its oil reserves from the Middle East and launched two fierce wars in 1991 and 2003 in order to preserve its hegemony over a vast area of oil resources in the region.

However, today the United States imports less than 15 percent of its reserves from the Middle East. That is less than what it gets from the United States itself, Canada or Latin America and almost as much as what it obtains from Africa. The United States is marching steadily toward energy independence. America is likely to keep its military forces in the Gulf for the foreseeable future to safeguard the flow of energy to global markets; however, it is unlikely any president will send a large military force to the region for energy-related concerns. So, this old relationship, which has lasted 80 years and was built on energy, is likely to come apart.

Self-Sufficiency of Israel’s Security

The relationship with Israel is America’s second oldest in the region. It began in 1948, but strengthened after 1967. The relationship with Israel, the spoiled child of America, has gone far beyond economic and strategic interests; it has evolved into a part of American culture and domestic politics. This was embodied in full form at the last annual conference of Israeli lobby AIPAC, where candidates for the presidency, among them Donald Trump, competed to show who holds the most extreme positions in support of Israel. Only Bernie Sanders stayed away. However, the strategic relationship has changed. After the Camp David Accords and the dismantling of Iraq and Syria, Israel no longer faces any real threat from Arab states; rather, it has great strategic relations with many of them and the threat of the Iranian nuclear program has been dealt with, albeit recently, in the agreement of the nuclear P5+1 nations. Israel built strong military capabilities with American help but no longer needs the deployment of American military forces or its direct participation in Israel’s protection. Israeli security self-sufficiency and the fading military threats are reducing the need for America’s presence in the region.

The Ebb of Geopolitical Interests

During the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, every country had importance. Any gain for the Soviets was considered a strategic loss for the United States. However, the Cold War ended and the tallying of friends and enemies in the international game of chess is over. So, recently, the United States did not mind the deterioration of its strong alliances with major nations in the region, like Egypt and Turkey, and did not issue a serious response when Russia sent its forces into Syria.

Russia is eager to exaggerate in parading its strength and is talking about the return of the Cold War atmosphere in which Moscow played an equal role to Washington. The United States, however, sees Russia as a secondary power in decline, even though it is still in a position to cause some problems during its deterioration. The global competition, at the end of the day, will be with China, not with Russia. This geostrategic conflict has begun in Asia and the South China Sea, yet still seems far from reaching the Middle East.

Resettlement of the War on Terror

After the attacks of Sept. 11 and with the resurgence of terrorist organizations since that time, terrorism jumped to first priority as the primary issue of national security for the United States. The United States does not face a real threat from any nation or group of nations in the world, but it is still vulnerable, like the nations of Europe, to terrorist attacks. In the beginning, this anxiety led the United States, under the Bush administration, to make a massive increase in its military intervention in the Middle East. However, years of this intervention have produced huge human and financial losses and have not destroyed terrorist networks, but increased their strength. Over time, it has been proven that fighting terrorism can be done more efficiently by strengthening state security, intelligence and police forces within a country than by launching international wars to defeat terrorist networks and cells wherever they exist around the world. The United States will continue its War on Terror through drone attacks and working with intelligence agencies in the region and around the world. There will also be efforts focused on defeating the Islamic State; however, Washington will focus on national security so long as the existence of terrorist networks abroad are accepted as an ongoing reality.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Perhaps the thing that worries Washington most about long-term national security is terrorist organizations obtaining WMDs. The United States is able to absorb attacks by terrorists with machine guns and homemade bombs. However, the catastrophic scenario is a terrorist group managing to obtain a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon.

The Bush administration, regardless of its veracity, justified its occupation of Iraq with the issue of Iraq’s supposed WMD weapons and programs, and Obama only threatened military action in Syria — although he subsequently backed down — because of the chemical weapons issue. His greatest policy endeavor was most focused on stopping Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons. North Korea still represents a source of anxiety for the United States only because it possesses nuclear weapons. WMD programs in Arab nations were brought to an end for the foreseeable future by the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Qaddafi’s decision to give up his nuclear weapons program in 2003, the Israeli attack on the isolate Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007 and Syria’s concession of its chemical weapons in 2013-2014. With the Iran agreement, which at the least guarantees the cessation of its nuclear armament program for ten years or more, Israel remains the only country in the Middle East that possesses WMD. So, the question of weapons will not return the United States to the region in the near future.

Summary

Much is said about whether Obama’s disengagement from the Middle East is merely a reflection of his temperament and personal preferences, or a temporary reaction to the excessiveness of the Bush administration’s military expansion. However, it seems that analysis of the five fundamental elements above gives us an indication of the direction of American foreign policy long-term.

Public opinion, a large part of the political elite and opinion-makers in the United States no longer see the Middle East as an indispensable region for political and economic interests requiring American intervention on a large scale. None of the candidates for the American presidency are suggesting a major overhaul of Obama’s policy; instead, they are seeking a slight readjustment, saying they will be more resolute in the confronting the Islamic State group or tougher on Iran and closer to Israel. Even Donald Trump is suggesting the idea of complete disengagement from the region and banning all Muslims from coming to the United States! These statements could be for political consumption during the campaign, but nonetheless indicate that the gap has grown between the United States and the region.

The disengagement of the United States from the region could be considered a good thing in terms of principle. However, until now, it has led to instability in the balance of power with Iran, a void filled by terrorist and extremist groups. Proxy wars have also escalated between regional powers, which have brought about a resurgence of other foreign powers, like Russia, and the complication of international relations in the region.

The way leaders in the region deal with the waning American presence will determine whether the 21st century will remain a century of regional, sectarian and civil wars, or become an opportunity to build capabilities and regional stability on a foundation of respect of sovereignty, cooperation and mutual benefit far from foreign intervention.