A Restraint-Oriented Middle East Policy Serves America’s Interests
As the war in Ukraine drags on and tensions with China rise, Washington remains fixated on the Middle East – an ongoing quagmire that has absorbed disproportionate U.S. resources for decades. Despite its limited relevance to national security, especially when compared to the growing threats posed by more powerful adversaries, the Middle East has consumed U.S. military, diplomatic, and financial capital since the end of World War II. Instead of continuing to funnel resources into this historically complex region, the U.S. should adopt a restraint-oriented policy that emphasizes diplomacy, limits military commitments, and redefines America’s role as a strategic advisor.
After the Cold War, the United States remained the dominant superpower during a period dubbed the “unipolar moment” by political pundit Charles Krauthammer in 1990. However, rather than embracing its geographic and economic advantages, it quickly lost that status by overplaying its hand militarily and economically.
The most devastating case of waste and destruction was the prolonged intervention in Afghanistan. Although targeting and eliminating al-Qaeda post 9/11 was justified, the disastrous nation-building project that followed drained U.S. coffers and put American servicemembers’ lives at considerable risk – for little to no payoff. Despite over $2 trillion being spent and thousands of U.S. casualties, U.S. national security was not enhanced but undermined. As the number of Afghans facing poverty and food insecurity increased, so did regional resentment towards Washington and its prolonged nation-building experiment.
Even since the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, militarism has remained a defining feature of U.S.-Middle East foreign policy as Washington maintains military facilities across at least 19 sites – eight of them considered to be permanent in countries including Bahrain, Egypt, and Iraq. Although these deployments are touted as reinforcing U.S. national security, U.S. troops in these countries have been exposed to attacks from Iran-backed militias and other non-state actors, including a drone assault that killed three U.S. service members in Jordan in early 2024.
The new administration has the opportunity to recharacterize Washington’s role in the Middle East as an advisor and convenor that shifts burdens onto able allies like Turkey and Israel. Such a foreign policy would be a welcome change for an American populace that is becoming increasingly skeptical of military adventurism.
How could the process of recharacterization begin? While reducing the number of military facilities in the Middle East will take a dedicated effort lasting many years, removing U.S. forces from tumultuous environments like Syria, where they are exposed to myriad threats, would be a good start. President Trump has rightly signaled that Syria is not a battleground that the United States should be involved in. Although Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin justified the contingent of U.S. troops in Syria as a measure to mitigate the resurgence of ISIS, the terror group has largely been defeated since 2019. Without a clearly defined mission, the president can fulfill the “sacred obligation” of keeping U.S. troops safe by bringing them home.
Serving as a mediator in the Middle East, especially in the Israel-Palestine conflict, should be another top priority for the new administration. The recent ceasefire is welcome news for innocent civilians and hostages who have been caught in the crossfire of the 15-month conflict. Ensuring all parties fulfill their obligations to facilitate the safe return of hostages would be a productive role for the United States to play. On top of maintaining the ceasefire, Washington should work with regional actors to facilitate humanitarian assistance to Gaza, where the war has displaced nearly the entire population of 2.3 million and led to a hunger crisis.
Lastly, abandoning the failed naval strategy to stop the Houthis’ attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea in favor of a forming multilateral diplomatic working group would be a positive development. This group could include representatives from the Houthis, Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, China, Russia, and the European Union to coordinate a comprehensive agreement to end future Houthi attacks.
After decades of military overreach, it is time for the United States to embrace a more restrained, diplomatic approach to the Middle East. By leveraging its diplomatic capital and reducing military commitments, Washington can focus its attention on more pressing global challenges – such as the rise of China and the ongoing crisis in Ukraine – while still playing a constructive role in regional peacebuilding. A restrained, diplomacy-first strategy in the Middle East will not only serve America’s strategic interests but also promote greater stability in the region.