Foreign Affairs Analysis: What Should the US Do With Iran and the Middle East? / Should It Withdraw or Stay and Change Strategy?

The Iran war has once again revived a longstanding debate over US policy in the Middle East. In August, Michael Fuchs argued in Foreign Affairs that this conflict, which he described as a 'massive disaster,' should serve as a catalyst for a long-overdue exit. He contended that the United States should withdraw all its bases and forces from the region and 'end its role as guarantor of regional order' so that Washington…

Philip Gordon, national security adviser to Kamala Harris, Biden's deputy, wrote in "Foreign Affairs" magazine: Michael Corleone's famous lament in the movie "The Godfather: Part III" can be the motto of every American president in the past three decades when dealing with the Middle East: "Just when I thought I was out of it, they drag me back into it."

According to "Select" report; This article continues: Bill Clinton promised to focus on the economy "like a laser beam", but at the end of his presidency, most of his attention was spent on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and trying to contain Saddam Hussein's Iraq. George W. Bush entered the White House promising a "modest" foreign policy, but ended up invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq. Barack Obama spoke of a "pivot to Asia", but ended up getting involved in the consequences of the Arab Spring, the military campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and comprehensive and exhausting negotiations with Iran.

Joe Biden tried to de-prioritize the Middle East, until the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas on Israel that affected much of his presidency. And most impressively, Donald Trump, who entered the election campaign by opposing "endless wars", finally took a gamble in the form of an unrelenting war against Iran; A war that may define his second term as president.

The Iran war has once again given new life to a long-standing debate about US policy in the Middle East. Michael Fuchs argued in Foreign Affairs in August that the conflict – which he described as a “colossal disaster” – should be the trigger for a long-overdue exit. According to him, the United States should withdraw all its bases and forces from the region and "end its role as the guarantor of regional order" so that Washington can focus on more important goals in Asia and Europe.

This is a serious argument that will resonate with many Americans; Those who have seen their country spend trillions of dollars in the Middle East and lose thousands of its troops without achieving much.

Critics are right about America's excessive commitment to the region. But the solution they propose, which is to "abandon the region" and leave it to its own fate, is not correct. The Iran war has not shown that America no longer has interests in the Middle East; Rather, it has shown in a very painful way that these interests still exist and the way Washington has pursued them for a generation is unsustainable.

The lesson of this war is not to abandon the region; Rather, it is a rethinking of an approach that is both too costly and has produced a counterproductive result. Instead, America must defend a narrower set of core interests, with a smaller military presence, more diplomacy, more alternatives, and more partners.

Neither the intensification of past policies nor a complete withdrawal from the region is the way out of the cycle that has plagued all recent US presidents. Perhaps a middle path, more pragmatic and disciplined, can provide such a way.

Let's see what critics of American foreign policy in the region are right about.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost at least 2 trillion dollars each. In addition to the lives of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of local civilians who were lost in these wars. These wars severely damaged America's global reputation and made a generation of Americans pessimistic about their country's ability to play a positive role in the world.

Twenty-five years of counterterrorism operations have significantly reduced the threat of global terrorism, but they have not made the region any more free and, in many places, have destabilized it.

Now, the Iran war has brought new consequences of America's false pride and this country's military excesses: tens of billions of dollars in direct military spending, thousands of dead and injured, the transfer of military equipment from other vital areas to the Middle East, the reduction of rare ammunition reserves, the weakening of alliances, windfall profits for Russia as a result of the increase in oil prices, the increasingly strict regime of Iran and the biggest disruption in the supply of oil in the history of the world market of this commodity.

Critics also rightly say that the U.S. military presence in the region, long considered necessary to deter war and maintain energy flows, has in many ways become a weakness.

The network of large military bases that Washington established after the Persian Gulf War in 1991 is now vulnerable to Iranian drones and ballistic missiles. Instead of stopping Tehran from taking military action, these bases provide Iran with targets and provide more leverage for it.

Meanwhile, the deployment of American troops on the front lines tempts the country's leaders to choose military solutions. The need to protect these forces also creates a self-destructive cycle in which the threat against American forces becomes one of the main reasons for maintaining their presence in the region.

Critics are also right that US support for its regional partners has been too taken for granted and that this support has been too easily abused.

For example, Washington's almost unconditional support for Israel has created a kind of "moral hazard"; A kind of implicit insurance that encourages Israel to take more risks and drags the US into conflicts it neither chose nor can control.

America's dependence on Persian Gulf partners to maintain its security presence has also made Washington refrain from seriously criticizing repression in these countries and turn a blind eye to their destabilizing interventions in countries such as Libya, Sudan, and Yemen.

As a result, US domestic policy is moving towards greater restraint – if not complete withdrawal from the region. A large majority of Americans in polls say that the Iran war is not worth fighting. Voters in both parties, especially younger ones, are also more skeptical than ever about America's security partnership with Israel and "endless wars" that appear to neither make the country safer nor address the issues that matter most to people.

Any strategy that ignores this skepticism is unlikely to survive the next election or receive funding from the Congress that is likely to form after that.

However, accepting the failure of American policy does not mean concluding that the interests of this country are lost.

Some of the most important reasons for America's past presence in the region have really faded; including the Cold War rivalry with the Soviet Union, America's strong dependence on oil imports, the threats of Al-Qaeda and ISIS during their peak activities, and Israel's vulnerable need for support against hostile Arab armies.

But the benefits that remain are real; As the Iran war has clearly shown.

Consider the importance of continuity of energy supply.

Now the US is a net exporter of oil and gas and imports a small amount of crude oil from the Persian Gulf. This issue has led many to conclude that the energy of the region is no longer of much importance to Americans.

But the notion of America's "energy independence" is greatly exaggerated. Oil is a movable and tradable commodity in the world market that has a single global price. As the Iran war has shown, whenever the supply of oil in any part of the world is disrupted, Americans will have to pay more at fuel stations, and the slowdown in economic growth in Asia and Europe will also harm the American economy.

The world is also not moving away from fossil fuels as fast as many expected. Despite the real boom in renewable energy such as solar, wind and hydropower, global oil and coal consumption has recently reached an all-time high. Fossil fuels still provide about 80% of the world's energy; A figure that is only slightly lower than about 85% in the early 1990s.

The continuous expansion of energy-intensive data centers further increases the demand.

The Iran war has been a harsh and bitter reminder of these realities. In a predictable response to the US and Israeli attacks, Iran targeted the region's energy infrastructure and blocked the shipping route in the Strait of Hormuz. Before this war, a quarter of the world's seaborne oil trade and almost a fifth of the world's liquefied natural gas passed through the strait, along with chemical fertilizers, refined products and other vital goods.

The price of oil jumped and as a result, the price of gasoline in the United States increased by more than 40% and the price of diesel by more than 70%. These increases fueled inflation and raised interest rates.

Only a combination of an unexpected and dramatic drop in Chinese oil imports—made possible by oil storage and a shift toward renewable energy—the emergency release of strategic oil reserves and the use of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates pipelines that bypass the Strait of Hormuz have prevented the damage from being much worse so far.

When examining the question of whether the US should continue to care about the flow of oil out of the Middle East or not, it should be remembered that a 1% annual decline in US GDP as a result of an oil supply shock will wipe out more than 300 billion dollars from the country's economic output. A 1% decrease in global production will damage the world economy by more than one trillion dollars.

These are implications that all Americans should care about.

America's interests in the region are not limited to repelling threats; This country also has positive and constructive interests.

Preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons is another enduring interest of the United States.

Some researchers argue that a nuclear-armed Iran can be contained. Some even believe that the proliferation of nuclear weapons may help stabilize the region; As they believe, such a situation was stabilized to some extent during the Cold War.

Another group believes that if the threat of US military intervention is removed or reduced, Iran will basically give up acquiring nuclear weapons, and therefore there is not much to worry about.

Both scenarios are possible, but it is unlikely that any American president is willing to bet on one of them; That too for valid reasons.

A nuclear Iran knows that it can maintain or strengthen the support of its proxy forces by ensuring the deterrence of its arsenal, be more involved in the affairs of its neighbors, or intensify its conflict with Israel; Because he knows that his nuclear arsenal will stop any attempt to overthrow the government in response to these actions.

If Iran acquires a nuclear bomb, its regional neighbors will probably try to follow the same path.