Washington and the Trilogy of Oil, Israel and Terror

Washington does not need to send in warships to the Middle East to sell iPhones or Chevy cars, nor to foist Starbucks coffee shops upon us. Our markets are less valuable for U.S. goods and are too small to wage wars over. Rather, there are three good reasons keeping the U.S. in our region, regardless of how much the White House feels bored, frustrated or like it has failed here. There is a trilogy: Oil, Israel and terrorism are stronger than all the factors pushing the U.S. to pack its bags and take off from this constantly inflamed region.

It was a long farewell when the Americans left South Vietnam after Saigon fell on April 30, 1975. They did not return for 30 years, except for trade and tourism purposes. This was a war that the Americans lost; instead of pushing on with the killing, they accepted the defeat, turning the page in their history book. Today, Vietnam is no longer mentioned except in Hollywood films and in the memories of Vietnam vets, including those who were wounded.

Now, the Americans are preparing to leave Afghanistan after having just left Iraq. They have refused to intervene in Syria and are content to wage war on al-Qaida via drone strikes. So can the U.S. government truly turn out the lights, leave the region and live in peace?

The wars in Vietnam and Cambodia differ greatly from the battles of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and al-Qaida. The most important of these differences is that fleeing the region will not end the war as it did in Saigon, except in one case: if there were orderly systems in the Middle East that could put an end to the conflicts. But such order is elusive in a region whose conflicts are an explosive cocktail of religious, historical, political, tribal and economic factors. In Southeast Asia, the conflict was political, encompassing the Cold War axes — the West, China and the Soviet Union. But in the Middle East, there exists a long legacy of conflicts that have created wars resulting in political vacuums for regional nations. Additionally, the U.S. has mismanaged the crises occurring inside these vacuums.

I mentioned the trilogy of factors that prevent the U.S. from getting out of the Middle East. The first of these is oil: Oil is too important to be left to chaos because it impacts the global economy. The fact is that even though the U.S. failed in managing political crises, its presence in the Middle East has been effective in oil production and exportation, and has stabilized the oil market. In the absence of the U.S., oil will spiral out of control and cause chaos in the global markets.

The second factor in the trilogy is Israel: All U.S. administrations have been committed to safeguarding Israel. This protection cannot be extended merely by muzzling Iran’s nuclear fangs. The solution is to identify an agreement that will end the [Palestine-Israel] conflict and continuously watch over the region ito defend the alliance.

The third of the trilogy is terrorism: This is a danger that threatens the entire world, not just Anbar province in Iraq, Aleppo in Syria or Aden in Yemen. What lies ahead of us is a war lasting one or two decades, against organizations like al-Qaida, which has proven its ability to expand and infiltrate the farthest corners of the globe.