For nearly a century, the United States has been deeply involved in the Middle East, initially driven by strategic interests in oil. Over time, this involvement has grown into a complex web of military alliances, political entanglements, and defense contracts.
As America’s role in the region transformed, it shifted from direct necessity to an effort focused on sustaining influence and maintaining global credibility. However, this approach is now increasingly misaligned with the broader strategic needs of Washington.
A growing consensus among analysts and segments of the U.S. political elite is emerging, suggesting that America must pivot its focus toward the Indo-Pacific. Nevertheless, parts of the national security establishment remain anchored in outdated thinking.
Legacy commitments, institutional inertia, and a Cold War-era worldview continue to dictate policy decisions, often leading to long-term strategic losses.
It is evident that the time has come for the U.S. to let go of its historical entanglements in the Middle East and pivot decisively towards where the real challenges lie—countering China.
Despite a growing consensus among experts and public opinion, there are segments within the U.S. foreign policy establishment that cling to a Middle East-centric mentality rooted in the principles of the Cold War era. This outdated assumption that America must always assume a direct and heavy-handed role in the region persists, even as its strategic relevance becomes increasingly questionable.
President Donald Trump’s foreign policy instincts, while polarizing, underscored a key truth: the U.S. needs to unburden itself from the ongoing demands of the Middle East to focus on the critical geopolitical contest of the times.
Tom Barrack, who was appointed by Trump as ambassador to Türkiye and special envoy to Syria, exemplified a pragmatic approach. His mission aimed to stabilize the Levant sufficiently for the U.S. to turn its focus eastwards.
Unfortunately, many policy elites in Washington continue to view the Middle East through a lens fashioned during the tumultuous 1970s. This era was characterized by oil shocks, the Soviet threat, and Arab-Israeli conflicts.
These policymakers often struggle to comprehend that today’s Middle East, albeit still volatile, no longer merits the same level of American involvement as in years past. The U.S. has developed regional partnerships with Türkiye, Israel, and the Gulf states, all of which possess the capacity to manage local security concerns without constant American oversight.
Moreover, it is critical to recognize that China is not amassing influence in the Middle East. The genuine battlegrounds for global leadership and influence are found in Africa, Latin America, Central Asia, and, most importantly, the Pacific.
Beijing is actively constructing ports, forging trade deals, and extending its influence through extensive infrastructure initiatives under the Belt and Road Initiative. The limitations on Washington’s bandwidth mean that every unnecessary deployment or diplomatic diversion in the Middle East detracts from competing in areas that genuinely matter.
Another notable aspect is that there exists a rare moment of bipartisan convergence among the American public: citizens are increasingly weary of costly entanglements in a region that no longer serves core national interests. The appetite for restraint is palpable and growing.
To adapt effectively, the U.S. should adopt a leaner, smarter footprint in the Middle East. Countries like Russia have already adapted their presence amid the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
It’s high time for the U.S. to break free from inertia driven by outdated threat perceptions and pivot decisively toward the Indo-Pacific, where future opportunities and challenges are unfolding.
Historically, the initial impetus for American engagement in the Middle East revolved around energy concerns. The discovery of oil in Saudi Arabia in 1938 marked a pivotal moment, and by 1945, the U.S. had established its first military base in the region.
For decades, ensuring access to affordable Middle Eastern oil was deemed essential to the U.S. and the global economy.
However, this premise has shifted dramatically. As of 2022, the United States has become the world’s largest oil producer, even surpassing Saudi Arabia, achieving a state of functional energy independence.
Still, oil remains a strategic component, not out of necessity for the U.S. but because it is vital for others. Hence, the focus has transformed from energy security to energy leverage, where the U.S. aims to ensure access for allies while restricting it for competitors like China.
This transition indicates that the United States can now achieve its objectives by fostering strong relations with its allies rather than through direct military involvement. A more focused and strategically determined Washington is poised to convey a more effective message in achieving regional stability.
Another pillar underpinning U.S. involvement in the Middle East is the arms trade. In 2023, U.S. foreign military sales reached a staggering $238 billion, representing over 40% of the global market.
The Middle East stands out as a key market for these sales. However, these transactions extend beyond mere economics; they serve as political tools that enforce security dependencies and strengthen American leverage in the region.
Countries such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt maintain a strong reliance on American military equipment. This dependence tightly intertwines their security with U.S. defense and diplomatic infrastructure.
Moreover, Israel, as Washington’s closest regional ally, ranks as the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign aid since World War II, most of which is allocated for purchasing American arms.
The significance of these relationships eclipses economic considerations; they empower Washington to project power without necessitating a continuous military presence while also ensuring that American defense contractors, alongside their political allies, retain substantial influence in the region.
President Trump’s final Gulf tour exemplifies a crucial point: the U.S. does not need to maintain a direct physical presence or resort to showmanship to boost its influence; instead, diplomacy and meaningful engagement can yield even greater results.
Historically, the nature of U.S. alliances in the region has been fluid. Some partnerships are formal, like Türkiye’s NATO membership, while others, such as the alliance with Saudi Arabia, are more pragmatic and transactional.
The alliance with Israel, which has remained steadfast since its establishment in 1948, continues to be one of the most enduring relationships. However, other alliances have experienced tremendous shifts over time.
For instance, Iran once served as a central U.S. ally until the 1979 revolution transformed Iran into a significant challenger of U.S. influence in the region. America’s backing of the 1953 coup that ousted Iran’s elected government still reverberates, shaping Iranian political identity and fueling anti-American sentiment.
These dynamic alliances showcase an underlying tension: the divergent interests of U.S. partners in the region frequently lead to unintended consequences when Washington attempts to balance them politically.
President Trump’s non-interventionist stance reflects this predicament, characterized by a clear rejection of nation-building initiatives.
The U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 stands out as the most consequential and lasting intervention in the Middle East. Dubbed a mission to dismantle weapons of mass destruction and combat terrorism, the conflict ultimately resulted in destabilizing the region and undermining America’s credibility.
There were no weapons of mass destruction found. Al-Qaeda was not operationally present in Iraq; nevertheless, the war proceeded, leading to years of insurgency, sectarian violence, and the rise of ISIS.
At the height of the U.S. occupation, approximately 250,000 American troops were deployed to Iraq. Although the official withdrawal occurred in 2011, escalating instability necessitated a return just three years later.
The Iraq War eroded U.S. prestige, laid bare the limitations of military power, and shifted public sentiment sharply against extensive interventions. Studies now indicate that Iran emerged as the primary beneficiary of that conflict.
Despite the lingering impact of the Iraq debacle, the U.S. has failed to disengage completely from the region. Today, its footprint differs from previous years, with a reduction in ground troop presence, reliance on drone strikes, intelligence sharing, and the establishment of forward-operating bases.
This preference for remote warfare signifies an intent to project power without the need for large contingents on the ground. Nonetheless, a significant U.S. military presence persists across the region, from Bahrain to Qatar to Syria, supporting counterterrorism endeavors, safeguarding shipping lanes, and lending assurance to allies.
When Houthi fighters in Yemen targeted shipping lanes during conflicts involving Israel and Gaza, it was American naval power that responded. However, this prevailing presence raises pivotal questions regarding the U.S.’s responsibility in protecting global commerce.
Is the U.S. merely the only actor responsible for safeguarding a region that could benefit from more self-reliance by local players, facilitated through American diplomatic support?
The central challenge lies in the apparent strategic drift. While the White House emphasizes the need to compete with China and pursue stability in the Indo-Pacific, the Middle East continues to consume valuable resources, bandwidth, and attention.
This misalignment arises largely due to habit, institutional resistance, and political caution. Portions of the U.S. foreign policy establishment persist in operating under assumptions forged during the Cold War and the post-9/11 period, assumptions that no longer reflect contemporary regional realities.
Emerging powers like Russia and China have entered the geopolitical landscape alongside regional actors that have developed their priorities and agendas. Despite the best intentions of Washington, its approach frequently fails to adapt to these evolving dynamics.
image source from：turkiyetoday
